



0^ %b^ 'o , , 












^"•^^^ V 



\^ .. -^ ••' f° ^ '" \^ 












^*/» 
V ^ 








5^. 










.0. 


















^0* • ^^r^i^ * ^v 




>?. 








^ .-^y* /aVa!-. •e^ A^ **«Slfek'. \^/ *>vV/)u\ 'e^ A^ *N 





THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 
IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 

CHARLES ALTSCHUL 



The American Revolution 
in Our School Text-Books 



AN ATTEMPT TO TRACK THE INFLUENCE OF EARLY SCHOOL EDUCATION 

ON THE 

FEELING TOWARDS ENGLAND 

IN THE 

UNITED STATES 



BY 

CHARLES ALTSCHUL 



WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY 

JAMES T. SHOTWELL 

PROFESSOR or HISTORY AT COLUMBIA UNIVXRUTY 



NEW YORK 
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 






COPYKIGHT, 19 1 7, 
BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 



PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 



OCT -8 1917 



©01.4476441 



INTRODUCTION 

THE great war has shown the importance of the teach- 
ing of history, in the formation of national ideals. 
From it may come either a clarification of our 
understanding as to the meaning of the process 
of which the present forms but a momentary part, or else 
a perpetuation of misunderstandings which prejudice and 
uncritical habits of mind have fastened upon us. In either 
case, as we see it now, the historian, with all the varied data 
of the past to draw upon, has in his hands more than we 
had formerly imagined of the moulding of opinion in the 
present, and therefore of the direction — in general lines — 
of future policies. 

Unfortunately it cannot be said of those histories which 
are by far the most widely read, that they have been written 
out of a knowledge of all this varied data of the past. On 
the contrary, the text-books in history have more commonly 
been the product of a very limited knowledge of the actual 
facts of the subjects with which they deal. This limit of 
vision has naturally gone with a distortion in perspective. 
They have, for the most part, persisted in perpetuating 
ancient, uncriticized traditions which have accumulated 
since the events themselves, rather than attempting bravely 
and frankly to tell the story of what happened in the light 
of the time in which it happened. The text-books which 
have been written recently show a marked improvement in 
historical perspective, but unfortunately their influence has 
come too late to afifect the generation which to-day is called 
upon to face the most tremendous issues of which history 
has record, and which is therefore bound to bring to that 
decision an imperfect historical judgment. For the teach- 
ing of history depends largely upon the text-books used in 
the schools ; and upon that teaching rests, to a large degree, 
our conception as to the character of nations and national 
policies. 

This has been clearly evident in the teaching of history in 



vi INTRODUCTION 

Europe, where the emotional interest in the story of the 
past has been heightened by the shifting but ever-present 
conflict of national forces, so that many of the issues at stake 
are too vital to be treated as discarded elements of ancient 
things. But if it has been easy for American students to 
point out the fallacies in European history-books, since the 
theme is seen more objectively, the discovery leads us less 
toward complacency as to our own achievements than toward 
a sharpening of self-criticism. It turns us back upon our- 
selves for a re-examination of the kind of outlook we have 
acquired concerning the events and the meaning of the lead- 
ing features of American history. 

Fortunately already before this war the older issues of 
our past had ceased to dominate in the present. The nation 
which had conquered a continent learned, after the great 
task was practically completed, that this conquest was its 
greatest achievement. It had also willed that the soil it 
made its own should be free, and that the ideals of democ- 
racy should here find a safe and secure abode, America, 
"home of the free," earned its title by a struggle lasting 
century-long. From the ever-moving frontier came much of 
the spirit of its freedom. But this process lacked the pic- 
turesque, heroic quality of the first great struggle for liberty, 
and the Revolution furnished the epic of American 
history — until the scientific historians of to-day began to 
show, and the school-books to reflect, the importance of the 
small events of generations of peaceful lives, making real 
the ideals of the past. 

Before the war came, therefore, a re-valuation of our 
history was under way. But the war has thrust criticism 
upon us in other ways. The present study is a good ex- 
ample of it. It is the work of a business-man, intensely 
interested in the opinions of his fellow-citizens. It makes 
no claim to "higher criticism". It does not deal with orig- 
inal sources of the history of the problem with which it 
deals ; it is simply an analysis of the basis of that opinion 
about history and peoples which the author observed in those 
with whom he came in contact, and who, in spite of admoni- 
tions from high quarters, were more intent upon expressing 
those opinions than upon substantiating them by a study of 
fact. 

It will be seen by any serious student of the period, that 



INTRODUCTION vii 

Mr. Altschul has, with rare moderation, hmited his survey 
not only to the text-books he analyzes, but also to a small 
portion of the subject itself. There are many other angles 
of approach and many other possibilities of criticism. But 
the author has preferred to deal thoroughly with the patent 
facts in his own line of inquiry. He does not attempt to 
evaluate the "tendencies" of the books with which he deals, 
nor to enter into the question of general interpretations. 
That, he feels, is a matter for the research historian. But 
the method employed is novel and the results of interest, 
not simply for the citizen who has only such text-book 
knowledge of the history of his country as is given in the 
books under review, but for the teacher who even to-day 
accepts the statements in them as authoritative and final. 
When the spirit of criticism is awakened in the citizen who 
has been trained in the old traditions, it is bound to pene- 
trate the schools as well. 

There is one large inference Mr. Altschul has justly 
drawn from the data, and that is that our history has been 
studied for the most part in a rather superficial manner. 
The larger inheritance of our institutions and habits of 
thought, being so intimate a part of us, has been taken for 
granted without any clear appreciation of how much of it 
is a product of history that reaches back, in the main, beyond 
the Revolution. When history is seen to be more than a 
succession of dramatic events, of wars and crises, an embodi- 
ment, rather, of the long life-story of social and political 
adjustment to ideals through changing environment, a pro- 
cess affecting every generation and linking the common 
things of daily life to the great purposes of national develop- 
ment, then the story of our achievement will be seen to have 
a different content and a more practical bearing than the 
epic which time and the careless memory of men have 
offered as its substitute. And then, corrected by a wider 
apprehension of its meaning, the old story, recast to meet the 
demands of a critical audience, will lend its inspiration to 
the attainment of juster ideals than provincial and mislead- 
ing conceptions of a receding past. 

James T. Shotwell. 



PREFACE 

SINCE the outbreak of the Great War, it has been highly 
interesting to watch the drift of American sympathy 
towards the different belHgerent nations, and to note 
the direction in which it crystalHzed. 

The hne between pro-Teuton and pro-Ally sentiment was 
quickly drawn, but the grouping of those who sympathized 
with the dift'erent Allied nations did not become apparent 
so soon. Since a long time, however, it has been perfectly 
evident that there is a very strong pro-French sentiment in 
this country, while there is no such broad and popular mani- 
festation in favor of the English. 

It is not difficult to understand why the sympathy for the 
French will always assert itself vigorously in the United 
States. We all cherish a grateful remembrance of the assist- 
ance given us by France during our Revolutionary War; 
we all followed her political difficulties during the last forty 
years with the deepest interest ; we have always recognized 
and admired the achievements of her people in the arts, in 
literature, in science ; and their generally lighter, more grace- 
ful vein charms us and appeals powerfully to our imagina- 
tion. 

In view of the deep significance of the present European 
contest, it is, however, not easy to account for the apparent 
lack of a similar sympathy for England — a country which 
is, in its way, faced with as dire a peril as France, and one 
which, even though she has not yet suffered as much, would 
probably undergo deeper humiliation, should the Allies suc- 
cumb. 

We all understand that the historical origin of our nation 
is one of the causes which dampens the enthusiasm for 
England ; we remember the political agitation which, years 
ago, aroused slumbering animosities at every election, and 
which, even in these days, occasionally fans the flames of 
prejudice. Besides, we recall minor causes of irritation 
which have, from time to time, sown mutual distrust be- 



X PREFACE 

tween the two nations ; and, at the present moment, we must 
make allowance for the pernicious effect of recent German 
propaganda. 

But, in spite of the controversies which have at times 
raged between the two peoples, we speak the same language 
as the English; our customs have been fashioned after 
theirs ; our legal procedure has been founded upon theirs ; 
their ideas of government and their conception of Liberty 
are ours as well. In spite of the wars we have fought 
against them, we have never thought of turning to any other 
nation as a model for what is most essential in our public 
and private Hfe. Many nationalities have been brought to- 
gether in this melting pot; but the influence of all other 
nations remains negligible compared to that of England. 
She is, after all, the Mother Country, from whom we have 
acquired what really counts in the long run : language, cus- 
toms, political hberty, tradition ! 

Why then, have we not rallied in a much greater measure 
to the moral support of England in this world upheaval? 
Why did not the sympathy of the largest proportion of our 
people go out to the English rather than to any other nation ? 

It has occurred to me that the explanation of this phe- 
nomenon lies in the way in which facts of history, super- 
ficially studied without due regard to surrounding circum- 
stances, determine our views in later life; especially if lodged 
in that mysterious store-house, "the sub-conscious", during 
childhood, when the spirit in which instruction is given 
leaves a more indelible mark than do the facts themselves, 
/impressions gained during the early years of school-hfe may 
possibly have had a far-reaching influence in instilling a 
prejudice against the country whose control we repudiated 
in the Revolutionary War. Such a prejudice once en- 
gendered would be very likely to distort one's vision in con- 
nection with everything that relates to the same subject, and 
yet leave one totally unaware of the part those very school- 
day influences play in forming one's present opinions, t 

In following this line of thought, I have tried to ascertain 
what impressions pupils are likely to have received from 
the study of the American Revolution as recorded in our 
text-books. Have the children been given an adequate or 
unbiased picture of the conditions which led to the great 
conflict with the Mother Country ; and if not, what general 



PREFACE xi 

impressions are they apt to have gained from their earliest 
studies? Would an impartial presentation of the historical 
facts have given them different ideas, and would it have pre- 
vented possibly wrong and antagonistic notions? Have the 
pupils, for instance, been shown the gulf which, at that time, 
separated the King of that day and his friends from the 
truer representatives of the best thought and traditions of 
England ? Have their minds been directed as forcefully as 
might have been to the shining example of prominent Eng- 
Hshmen, like Pitt, Burke, Barre, Fox, and others, who lost 
no opportunity in Parliament to fight in the interest of the 
Americans, and who never hesitated to risk the displeasure 
of the King, in attempting to promote the cause of the col- 
onists? In fine, has the history of the greatest event in the 
life of our nation been taught in the spirit of fair and im- 
partial inquiry for the facts of the case, or in a one-sided 
manner apt to implant prejudice ? 

The object of this informal study is to ascertain if satis- 
factory evidence is available to warrant an answer to these 
questions; to determine whether we are justified in thinking 
that the history text-books in use more than twenty years 
ago may have had a definite prejudicial influence on the 
minds of a considerable part of our population; and if so, 
to what extent the text-books in use at present promise a 
different result. 

In following this inquiry, no attempt was made to gather 
information concerning the Revolutionary Period from 
sources other than the text-books themselves. 

C. A. 

New York City, March, 1917. 



THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 
IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 



THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION IN 
OUR SCHOOL TEXT- BOOKS 



THE great majority of people in this country have 
probably gained their knowledge of the American 
Revolution in the first grades of the Public Schools 
in which they were taught History. Owing to the 
general custom that a chapter of History, once studied by 
the pupil, is not taken up again, it would seem that the text- 
books used in these grades should be a fair index to the 
knowledge that had been imparted. No doubt, many pupils 
make a more complete study of certain phases of History 
at some later time ; but this inquiry is confined to the great 
mass of children that follows only the regular course of our 
Public Schools. 

If one could ascertain how many pupils had acquired their 
knowledge from each of the different text-books, current 
at a given time, one could determine pretty closely what 
general knowledge the pupils of that day are apt to have 
gained. It is manifestly impossible to secure an accurate 
picture of that kind, principally because of the complexity 
of the task, and the lack of instructive records in many 
communities. Nevertheless, it may be possible to form a 
fairly reliable opinion of the character of the information 
which has been disseminated on so striking a subject as the 
one with which we are concerned — the American Revolution. 

16 



16 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

The text-books which contain, relatively, the most com- 
plete information on this subject represent the situation to 
have been substantially as follows : 

Up to the time when George III. ascended the 
throne, the colonists greatly valued the connection 
with the mother country; the various distinct and 
separate colonies were at least as much attached to 
her as to one another ; and many colonists remained 
loyal throughout the Revolutionary War; 

In spite of their grievances, there was no general 
disposition to separate from the mother country 
before 1775; 

The greatest, wisest, and fairest-minded of Eng- 
land's statesmen were against the King, and fought 
on many occasions in Parliament in the interest of 
the Americans; 

Pitt, Burke, Fox, and others, were, in spirit, the 
allies of Franklin, Adams, and Washington ; 

The responsibility for the American Revolution 
mainly lies at the door of George III. and the 
"King's Friends"; 

Parliament was, at that time, not representative 
of the great mass of the English people; out of a 
population of approximately 8,000,000 only about 
200,000 Englishmen had the right to vote ; and 
many of these were influenced by illegitimate, dis- 
reputable means, adopted by the King in order to 
gain control of the legislative body; 

The people of England, as a whole, were not, and 
under the circumstances could not be, responsible 
for the American Revolution. 

How far from these conclusions are the statements from 
which most of the citizens of this country have drawn their 
knowledge of the history of the Revolution? 

In an endeavor to reach the sources from which the public 
gained its information, I have asked Boards of Education, 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 



17 



Superintendents of Public Schools, Principals of High 
Schools, and personal friends, to send me the names of some 
of the most popular text-books which were in use more than 
twenty years ago, in the three lowest grades in which Amer- 
ican History was taught, in the Public Schools of their sev- 
eral communities; as well as the names of some of the text- 
books in use at present. 

Correspondents in the following cities kindly answered 
my inquiries : 



Alabama 


Montgomery- 


New Hampshire 


Concord 


Arizona 


Phoenix 




Manchester 




Prescott 


New Jersey 


Newark 




Tucson 


New Mexico 


Deming 


Arkansas 


Fort Smith 


New York 


New York City 


California 


Sacramento 


Nevada 


Carson City 




San Diego 


North Carolina 


Charlotte 




San Francisco 




Raleigh 


Colorado 


Denver 


North Dakota 


Grand Forks 


Connecticut 


Hartford 


Ohio 


Cincinnati 


Delaware 


Dover 




Cleveland 


Dist. of Col. 


Washington 




Columbus 


Florida 


Tallahassee 


Oklahoma 


Oklahoma City 


Georgia 


Atlanta 


Oregon 


Portland 




Savannah 


Pennsylvania 


Philadelphia 


Idaho 


Boise 


Rhode Island 


Providence 


Illinois 


Chicago 


South Carolina 


Charleston 


Indiana 


Indianapolis 




Columbia 


Iowa 


Des Moines 


South Dakota 


Aberdeen 




Davenport 


Tennessee 


Memphis 


Kansas 


Kansas City 




Nashville 




Topeka 


Texas 


Austin 


Kentucky 


Louisville 




Galveston 


Louisiana 


New Orleans 




San Antonio 


Maine 


Bangor 


Utah 


Salt Lake City 


Maryland 


Baltimore 


Vermont 


BurHngton 


Massachusetts 


Boston 




MontpeUer 


Michigan 


Detroit 


Virginia 


Richmond 


Minnesota 


Minneapolis 


West Virginia 


Charleston 


Mississippi 


Vicksburg 


Washington 


Seattle 


Missoiiri 


St. Louis 




Walla Walla 


Montana 


Helena 


Wisconsin 


Madison 




Butte 




Milwaukee 


Nebraska 


Omaha 


Wyoming 


Cheyenne 



I have received answers from every State in the Union, 
(68 Cities), and have examined the chapters or paragraphs 
devoted to the Revolutionary Period in the following 93 
History text-books to which my attention has been directed 
in this manner. 



18 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

List of Text-Books Examined 
which were in use more than twenty years ago: 

1. Anderson's Popular School History of the U. S. — Ed. 1886. 

2. Anderson's New Grammar School History of the U. S. — Ed. 

1890. 

3. Anderson's Junior Class History of the U. S. — Ed. 1894. 

4. Armstrong's Primer of U. S. History. — Ed. 1885. 

5. Barnes' Primary History of the U. S. — Ed. 1885. 

6. Barnes' Brief History of the U. S., by Steele.— Ed. 1885. 

7. California State Series, History of the U. S.— Ed. 1888. 

8. Chambers' (Hansell's) School History of the U. S.— Ed. 1887. 

9. Chambers' (Hansell's) Higher History of the U. S.— Ed. 1889. 

10. Berry's History of the U. S.— Ed. 1882. 

11. Eggleston's First Book in American History. — C. R. 1889. 

12. Eggleston's History of the U. S. and Its People. — Ed. 1888. 

13. Ellis' Eclectic Primary History of the U. S. — Ed. 1884. 

14. Field's Grammar School History of the U. S. — Ed. 1897. 

15. Fisher's Outlines of Universal History. — Ed. 1897. 

16. Fiske's History of the U. S. — Ed. 1894. 

17. Gilman's Making of the American Nation. — Ed. 1887. 

18. Goodrich's (Parley's) Pictorial Hist, of the U. S.— Ed. 1881. 

19. Goodrich's (Seavey's) History of the U. S. — Ed. 1880. 

20. Higginson's Young Folks' History of the U. S. — Ed. 1885. 

21. Holmes' New School History of the U. S.— Ed. 1895. 

22. Johnston's History of the U. S. — Ed. 1895. 

23. Lossing's School History of the U. S. — Ed. 1885. 

24. Magill's History of Virginia. — Ed. 1904. 

25. MacMaster's School History of the tj. S. — C. R. 1884. 

26. Montgomery's Beginner's American History. — Ed. 1894. 

27. Montgomery's Leading Facts of American History. — Ed. 1893. 

28. Quackenbos' Elementary History of the U. S. — C. R. 1884. 

29. Quackenbos' (Appleton's) School History of the World. — C. R. 

1889. 

30. Quackenbos' School History of the U. S. — Ed. 1878. 

31. Ridpath's History of the U. S.— Ed. 1885. 

32. Scudder's Short History of the U. S.— Ed. 1890. 
^T^. Scudder's New History of the U. S. — Ed. 1897. 

34. Sheldon's American History (Mary Sheldon Barnes' Studies in 

Am. Hist.)— Ed. 1892. 

3,=;. Swinton's First Lessons in Our Country's History. — Ed. 1872. 

36. Swinton's Condensed U. S. School History. — Ed. 1871. 

37 Swinton's Outlines of the World's History. — Ed. 1874. 

38. Swinton's School History of the U. S. — Ed. 1893. 

39. Thalheimer's Eclectic History of the U. S. — Ed. 1881. 

40. Thomas' History of the U. S. — Ed. 1897. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 19 

List of Text-books examined which are in use at present: 

41. Adams and Trent's History of the U. S. — Ed. 1913. 

42. Barnes' School History of the U. S., by Steele. — Ed. 1914. 

43. Barnes' American History for Grammar Grades. — Ed. 1913. 

44. Barnes' Short American History by Grades, I. — Ed. 1913. 

45. Barnes' Short American History by Grades, H. — Ed. 1913. 

46. Bourne and Benton's History of the U. S. — Ed. 1913. 

47. Burton's Builders of Our Nation. — Ed. 1910. 

48. Chandler and Chitwood's Makers of American History. — C. R. 

1904. 

49. Channing's Student's History of the U. S. — Ed. 1913. 

50. Chambers' (Hansell's) A School History of the U. S. — Ed. 1913. 

51. Connor's The Story of the U. S. — Ed. 1916. 

52. Dickson's American History for Grammar Schools. — Ed. 1916. 

53. Eggleston's First Book in American History. — Ed. 1915. 

54. Eggleston's History of the U. S. and Its People. — Ed. 1915. 

55. Eggleston's New Century History of the U. S. — Ed. 1916. 

56. Elson's History of the U. S. of America. — Ed. 1913. 

57. Elson and MacMullan's Story of Our Country. — Ed. 1915. 

58. Evan's First Lessons in Georgia History. — Ed. 1913. 

59. Evans' Essential Facts of American History. — Ed. 1915. 

60. Estill's Beginner's History of Our Country. — Ed. 1915. 

61. Fiske's History of the U. S. — Ed. 1907. 

62. Formans' History of the U. S. — Ed. 1916. 

63. Foster's History of the U. S. — Ed. 1917. 

64. Gordy's Elementary History of the U. S. — Ed. 1913. 

65. Gordy's Stories of Later American History. — Ed. 1915. 

66. Gordy's History of the U. S. — Ed. 1914. 

67. Gorton's Elementary History of the U. S., H. — Ed. 1914. 

68. Hall, Smither, and Ousley's Student's Hist, of Our Country. — 

Ed. 1914. 

69. Hamilton's Our Republic. — Ed. 1910. 

70. Hart's Essentials in American History. — Ed, 1914. 

71. Higginson's Young Folks' History of the U. S. — Ed. 1902. 

72. Hodgdon's First Course in American History, H. — Ed. 1908. 

73. Lemmon's (Cooper, Estill, and Lemmon's) History of Our 

Country. — Ed. 1908. 

74. Mace's Primary History — Stories of Heroism. — Ed. 1916. 

75. Mace's Beginner's History. — Ed. 1916. 

76. Mace's School History of the U. S. — Ed. 1914. 

77. MacMaster's Primary History of the U. S. — Ed. 1915. 

78. MacMaster's Brief History of the U. S. — 1915. 

79. MacMaster's School History of the U. S. — Ed. 1916. 

80. Montgomery's Elementary American History. — Ed. 1915. 

81. Montgomery's Beginner's American History. — Ed. 1915. 

82. Montgomery's Leading Facts of American History. — Ed. 1916. 

83. Morris' History of the U. S. of America. — Ed. 1916. 

84. Perry and Price's American History, H. — Ed. 1914. 

85. Sheldon's American History (Mary Sheldon Barnes' Studies in 

Am. Hist.)— Ed. 1907. 



20 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

86. Swan's History and Civics, Fifth Year, II.— Ed. 191 5. 

87. Tappan's Elementary History of Our Country. — Ed. 1916. 

88. Thomas' Elementary History of the U. S.— Ed. 1916. 

89. Thompson's History of the U. S.— Ed. 1915. 

90. Thwaites and Kendall's History of the U. S.— Ed. 1915. 

91. VVoodburn and Moran's Elementary American Hist. & Govt. — 

Ed. 1914. 

92. Woodburn and Moran's American History and Government. — 

Ed. 1914. 

93. White's Beginner's History of the U. S. — Ed. 1916. 

Some of these text-books may not have been responsible 
for the earliest impressions of the pupils on this subject; 
others which did have such an influence, certainly exist, but 
did not come to my notice. The plan, however, on which 
this study has been developed, was to accept the replies to 
inquiries sent out, as a fair reflection of general conditions, 
and to avoid broadening the investigation. 

The picture which is thereby revealed of the teaching of 
American History throughout the country, cannot but be 
very incomplete, as there are innumerable communities and 
numberless text-books, and those which I have examined 
form but a fraction of the whole. Besides, it is impossible 
to ascertain how many pupils studied from one particular 
book, and how many made use of another. 

In spite of this, the picture is probably fairly representa- 
tive. An earnest effort was made to secure the most popular 
text-books from the principal City of each State, and in some 
instances, for special reasons, from some other cities besides ; 
and it is reasonably safe to assume that the smaller commu- 
nities have followed the lead of their larger neighbors in 
matters of education. 



The result of my investigation follows. The books have 
been arranged in five groups. In a few instances, it has 
been difficult to determine to which group a book properly 
belonged. In each such case, the book has been given the 
most favorable classification possible. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 21 

Of Of 

40 S3 

text-books text-books 

in use in use 

more than at 

twenty years present : 

ago: 

4 6 deal fully with the grievances of the 

colonists, give an account of general 
political conditions in England prior to 
the American Revolution, and give credit 
to prominent Englishmen for the serv- 
ices they rendered the Americans ; 

4 14 deal fully with the grievances of the 

colonists, make some reference to gen- 
eral political conditions in England prior 
to the American Revolution, and men- 
tion some prominent Englishmen who 
rendered services to the Americans ; 

II 13 deal fully with the grievances of the col- 

onists, make no reference to general 
political conditions in England prior to 
the American Revolution, but make, at 
least, favorable mention of several pro- 
minent Englishmen ; 

7 5 deal fully with the grievances of the 

colonists, make no reference to general 
political conditions in England prior to 
the American Revolution, but mention, 
at least, Pitt; 

14 15 deal fully with the grievances of the 

colonists, make no reference to general 
political conditions in England prior to 
the American Revolution, nor to any 
prominent Englishmen who devoted 
themselves to the cause of the Amer- 



♦Practically all the text-books mention Pitt in connection with the 
war against France in America, and in connection with the naming of 
Pittsburgh. This inquiry is however not directed to the period in which 
those incidents occurred. 



22 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

This numerical comparison by itself may be, to some 
extent, misleading ; it gives the picture from one angle only. 
It is essential to gain, besides, an impression of the relative 
distribution of the different text-books throughout the 
country. The number of pupils who are apt to have acquired 
knowledge from any of these books, can be more accurately 
estimated if we have some idea, in which particular com- 
munities, and in how many different ones, each separate text- 
book has been used. 

The following lists may throw some light on this subject. 
In order to enable as close a comparison as possible, only one 
City in a State is recorded in the lists referring to each text- 
book, even though, in some instances, the particular book 
was mentioned in replies from several cities in the same 
State. 



CITIES FROM WHICH THE USE OF EACH 

SEPARATE TEXT-BOOK WAS 

REPORTED 



BOOKS IN USE MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS 

AGO 



Group One 

Text-books which deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, give 
an account of general political conditions in England prior to the 
American Revolution, and give credit to prominent Englishmen for 
the services they rendered the Americans. 

Four Books 
7* i6 33 40 

San Francisco New York Columbus Charleston, W. Va. 

Washington Concord New York 

New York 
Philadelphia 



* The numbers correspond with the numbers of the text-books as listed 
on pages i8, 19, and 20- 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 23 

Group Two 

Text-books which deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 
make some reference to general political conditions in England prior 
to the American Revolution, and mention some prominent Englishmen 
who rendered services to the Americans. 





Four Books 




17 

Colxunbus 


20 22 

Columbus Columbus 

Concord 

New York 


23 
Hartford 



Group Three 

Text-books which deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 
make no reference to general political conditions in England prior to 
the American Revolution, but make, at least, favorable mention of 
several prominent Englishmen. 



Charlotte 
Nashville 
New Orleans 
Vicksburg 



Eleven Books 
10 14 

Richmond Atlanta 



15 

Nashville 



18 19 

Charleston, W. Va. Raleigh 
Charlotte 



21 

Richmond 



27 
Burlington 
Chicago 
Cleveland 
Concord 
Grand Porks 
IndianapoUs 
New York 
Philadelphia 



34 


36 


New York 


New York 


Salt Lake City 


San Francisco 




Savannah 



38 

Davenport 
New York 



24 



THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 



Group Four 

Text-books which deal fully with the grievances ot the colonists, 
make no reference to general political conditions in England prior to 
the American Revolution, but mention, at least, Pitt. 



Seven Books 
I 2 3 

Cincinnati Denver New York 

Newark Detroit Philadelphia 

New York Louisville 

Newark 

New York 

Omaha 

Philadelphia 

Salt Lake City 



24 

Richmond 



29 

Memphis 
New York 



31 
Aberdeen 
Kansas City 
Sacramento 



Group Five 



39 

Columbus 
Galveston 
Minneapolis 
New York 



Text-books which deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 
make no reference to general political conditions in England prior to 
the American Revolution, nor to any prominent Englishmen who 
devoted themselves to the cause of the Americans. 



Fourteen Books 
4 5 6 

New York Charleston, W. Va 

Dover 
Galveston 
Philadelphia 
San Francisco 
Vicksburg 



Aberdeen 

Bangor 

Boise City 

Charlotte 

Cheyenne 

Chicago 

Columbia 

Concord 

Deming 

Denver 

Detroit 

Grand Forks 

Kansas City 

Louisville 

Milwaukee 

Montpelier 

New York 

Philadelphia 

Providence 

San Antonio 

San Francisco 

St. Louis 



8 

Charlotte 
Memphis 
New Orleans 
Vicksburg 



IN 


OUR SCHOOL 


TEXT-BOOKS 2^ 


II 

New York 


12 

Charlotte 


13 

Columbus 


25 
New York 


Philadelphia 
Salt Lake City 


Chicago 

Deming 

Detroit 

Madison 

Newark 

New York 

Philadelphia 

Portland 

Washington 


Indianapolis 
New York 
San Diego 


Portland 


26 

Burlington 


28 

New York 


30 
Baltimore 


32 

New York 


New York 
Phoenix 






Philadelphia 




35 

Columbia 


37 

New York 






Galveston 


Savannah 






Milwaukee 








New York 








Philadelphia 
Savannah 








Tallahassee 








Walla Walla 







S6 



THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 



CITIES FROM WHICH THE USE OF EACH SEP- 
ARATE TEXT-BOOK WAS REPORTED 



BOOKS IN USE AT PRESENT 



Group One 

Text-books which deal fully with the grievances of the colonists give, 
an account of general political conditions in England prior to the 
American Revolution, and give credit to Drominent Englishmen for the 
services they rendered the Americans. 

Six Books 



49 

Boise City 

Boston 

Butte 

Louisville 

Manchester 



52 
Boston 
Detroit 
Milwaukee 



61 

Boston 
Denver 
Kansas City 
New York 
Salt Lake City 



67 

New York 



91 

Boston 
Chicago 
Newark 
New York 
Philadelphia 



92 

Boston 
Columbus 
Detroit 
Madison 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 27 

Group Two 

Text-books which deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 
make some reference to general political conditions in England prior to 
the American Revolution, and mention some prominent Englishmen 
who rendered services to the Americans. 



41 

Boston 
Fort Smith 
Savannah 



Fourteen Books 



43 
New York 



44 
New York 



45 
New York 



46 

Aberdeen 

Burlington 

Cheyenne 

Cincinnati 

Concord 

Detroit 

Louisville 

Philadelphia 

Providence 



.47 
Chicago 
Columbus 



56 

Hartford 
Milwaukee 
San Antonio 



63 

Kansas City 



66 

Bangor 

Boston 

Burlington 

Butte 

Concord 

Des Moines 

Grand Forks 

Hartford 

Indianapolis 

Kansas City 

Milwavikee 

New York 

Philadelphia 

Salt Lake City 

Vicksburg 



68 

Austin 



71 

Boston 



73 

Galveston 
Savannah 



84 
New York 
Philadelphia 



87 

Bangor 
Boston 
Concord 



28 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

Group Three 

Text-books which deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 
make no reference to general political conditions in England prior to 
the American Revolution, but make, at least, favorable mention of 
several prominent Englishmen. 





Thirteen Books 




65 


69 


70 


74 


Seattle 


Charlotte 


Boston 


Baltimore 




Richmond 


Portland 


Dover 




Tallahassee 




Hartford 

Helena 

Indianapolis 

Minneapolis 

Tucson 


75 


. 76 


78 


82 


Baltimore 


Baltimore 


Boston 


Aberdeen 


Cleveland 


Butte 


Butte 


Bangor 


Hartford 


Carson City 


Denver 


Boston 


New York 


Charlotte 


Milwaukee 


Carson City 


Philadelphia 


Chicago 


New York 


Cheyenne 


San Francisco 


Des Moines 


Philadelphia 


Hartford 


St. Louis 


Detroit 


San Francisco 


Newark 




Hartford 




New York 




Milwaukee 




Philadelphia 




Montpelier 




Washington 




New York 








Philadelphia 








Portland 








Tucson 








St. Louis 






83 


85 


86 


88 


Milwaukee 


Boston 


New York 


Boston 


New York 


Salt Lake City 




San Diego 


Philadelphia 


90 








Aberdeen 






Boston 








Des Moines 






Madison 


I 






Milwaukee 






Philadelphia 





IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 



29 



Group Four 

Text-books which deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 
make no reference to general political conditions in England prior to 
the American Revolution, but mention, at least, Pitt. 



51 
Raleigh 



Five Books 
57 64 

New York Bangor 

Seattle Boston 

Hartford 
Newark 
New York 
Topeka 
89 
Atlanta 

Charleston, S. C. 
Charlotte 
Columbia 
Memphis 
Montgomery 



72 
Chicago 



Group Five 

Text-books which deal fuUy with the grievances of the colonists, 
make no reference to general political conditions in England prior to 
the American Revolution, nor to any prominent Englishmen who de- 
voted themselves to the cause of the Americans. 



42 

New York 



54 
New York 
San Diego 

60 

Austin 
New Orleans 



80 

Bangor 
Boston 

Newark 
New York 
Washington 



Fifteen Books 
48 50 

Baltimore Savannah 

Memphis 
Richmond 



55 

New York 



62 

Chicago 

Detroit 

Louisville 

Omaha 

Philadelphia 



58 

Savannah 
Tallahassee 

77 
Chicago 
New York 



53 

Baltimore 
Boston I 
New York 

59 

Oklahoma 



79 

Cincinnati 
New York 
San Diego 



Bangor 

Charleston, W. Va. 

Columbia 

Dover 

Hartford 

Newark 

New York 

Washington 



93 

Charleston, S. C. 
Charlotte 



30 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

These data can likewise merely serve as an indication. 
Correspondents in some cities have reported more books 
in active use than others have done, so that existing condi- 
tions are no doubt only partially reflected. It must also be 
borne in mind that the circulation of different text-books 
in a given city is very unequal, and that, therefore, one text- 
book used in a community may reach a greater number of 
pupils than another. 

Making, however, full allowance for the different inac- 
curacies in this review which have been pointed out as un- 
avoidable, and for others which may have crept in unnoticed, 
the conclusions seem nevertheless fairly well justified : 

The great majority of History text-books, used 
in our Public Schools more than twenty years ago, 
gave a very incomplete picture of general political 
conditions in England prior to the American Revo- 
lution, and either did not refer at all to the great 
efforts made by prominent Enghshmen in behalf of 
the Colonies, or mentioned them only casually ; 

The number of separate History text-books 
which gave this incomplete picture was not only 
much larger than the number of those giving more 
complete information, but the former circulated 
in many more communities throughout our country 
than the latter; 

The public mind must thereby have been prej- 
udiced against England ; 

The children now studying American History in 
the Public Schools have a far greater number of 
text-books available which give relatively complete 
information on this subject; but the improve- 
ment is by no means sufficiently marked to prevent 
continued growth of unfounded prejudice against 
England. 

A perusal of the accompanying extracts from the differ- 
ent text-books here referred to will give a more accurate 
impression of the picture which these classifications attempt 
to summarize. 



EXTRACTS 



BOOKS IN USE MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS 

AGO 



GROUP ONE 

Text-books 

which 

deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 

give an account of general political conditions in England 

prior to the American Revolution, 

and give credit to prominent Englishmen 

for the services they rendered the Americans. 



From History of the United States, California State Series 

[7]* 

P. 112: The feeling of Americans toward the home government 
was never more loyal than at the close of the French war Roval 
governors asserted that the colonies were aiming at independence 
but Americans, with one voice, denied the charge. They looked 
forward to a great development, but under the British flag. The 
colonies loved England tar more than they loved one another. 

P. 113: George III and his Influence.— The measures, which in 
fJ°/T ^A^""^ changed Americans from loyal English subjects into 
the defenders of a new nationality, "fighting for their just and equal 
position among the powers of the earth," must not be regarded as 
frL"?,!^nT"%'''" °^ the people of England. George III., king 
rn?n^.yf to 1820, assumed the crown as a young man obstinately 
minded to rule m his own fashion. He did not, like the Stuarts, 
seek to ov-erride Parliament, but he made a corrupt Parliament 
the servant of his will. The English monarch united with the 
aristocracy ruling in Parliament to suppress public opinion in Eng- 
land and self-government in America. Even a king cannot stop 
the growth of nations, and beneath the tyranny of George III arose 
government by the people in both England and America. 

P. 115: Pitt was out of power and absent from Parliament on 
account of sickness. One opponent of the bill, however, spoke of 
Americans as 'sons of liberty", trained by hardship and danger to 
maintain their rights. His word received no attention in England, 
but the sons of liberty" heard them in America. 

1 ^' ^'^a" ^" .England merchants were threatened with ruin by the 
OSS of American trade and petitioned for a repeal. GrenviUe had 
lost his position. Pitt declared "This kingdom has no right to lay 
a tax upon the colonies. I rejoice that America has resisted" 
fierce debates raged in Parliament on the question of repeal, for 
Parliament had deliberately proclaimed its right to tax the colonies 
■i.^^^V^^^^}^'^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^=^^^ ^ts words. The repeal was carried 
m March, 1766, but at the same time a Declaratory Act was passed 
opposed only by Pitt and a few others, stating the right of Parlia- 
ment to bind the colonies and people of America in all things 
whatsoever An outburst of joy in England and America greeted 
the news of repeal. Americans cared very little about the declaratory 
act so long as nothing was done to enforce it. "They blessed their 
sovereign, revered the wisdom and the goodness of the British 
Parliament, and felt themselves happy." 

^u^: ^^?: ^^M ^^^ ^^^ ^P'"t of the succeeding English legislation 
that led to the American Revolution— the legislation of an English 
Parliament which did not represent the will of the English people, 
but was controlled and managed by George III. » i' . 

o^*J!'-es"^8'^^'^\''n"^''°"'^ ^'^^ ^^"^ numbers of the text-books as listed 

35 



S6 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

P. 120 : "It is the weight of that preamble," said the noble-minded 
Burke, defending the rights of Americans on the floor of the House 
of Commons, "and not the weight of the duty, that the Americans 
are unable and unwilling to bear." 

P. 121 : Americans hated the British soldiers, now stationed both 
at New York and Boston, for their presence was a constant re- 
minder of threatened slavery. 

P. 122: George III., in 1770, began a method of ruling the colonies 
by royal orders. Not waiting for the formality of an act of Parlia- 
ment, he sent instructions, over his own signature, to be executed 
by the colonial governors through military force, if necessary. By 
these orders, colonial assemblies were dissolved, unusual places were 
set for their meeting, and their organization was interfered with. 
Americans for the most part were opposed to the slave trade, but 
the king ordered them to cease their efforts to stop it. 

P. 123 : The Tea Tax, 1773.— Americans up to this time had been 
in the habit of expressing loyalty to the king, and of blaming only 
his ministers and corrupt majorities in Parliament for their troubles. 
They did not know that the king's will controlled both ministry and 
Parliament. The king was anxious "to try the question with 
America," and the tea tax was selected for the experiment. 

P. 127: In Parliament there were great debates on American 
affairs. Burke delivered an immortal speech in favor of concilia- 
tion (March 22d, I775), proclaiming that the fierce spirit of liberty 
in America could not be conquered, but his eloquence fell unheeded 
upon a nation whose pride of mastery had been wounded. The 
policy of the king and ministry went on unchecked. 

P. 157: Opinions of Englishmen.— After Burgoyne's surrender, 
the Earl of Chatham (Pitt), in the English House of Lords, repeated 
what Burke had proclaimed to the House of Commons in 1775: 
"My Lords", he said, "you cannot conquer America. In three years' 
campaign we have done nothing and suffered much. You may 
swell every expense, accumulate every assistance you can buy or 
borrow, traffic and barter with every little pitiful German prince, 
your efforts are forever vain and impotent, doubly so from this 
mercenary aid on which you rely, for it irritates to an incurable 
resentment. If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while 
a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down 
my arnts— never, never, NEVER." In the House of Commons 
Burke continued to speak for the Americans, supported now by 
Charles James Fox, the youngest defender of the American cause, 
and one of the most brilliant of English statesmen. Even now Fox 
demanded_the recognition of American independence. 

"THE LEGISLATION OF AN ENGLISH PARLIA- 
MENT WHICH DID NOT REPRESENT THE 
WILL OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE " 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 37 

From Fiske's History of the United States 
[i6] 

.7\'^^^''^ \ ■ j^"^, ^^^ smuggling of foreign goods into Boston 
and New York and other seaport towns was winked at. . _ °^^°" 

P. 191 : As the Americans would not buy or use the stamos Par 
l.ament repealed the Stamp Act the next year, 1766 aftera'fierc; 
debate that lasted three months. William Pitt declared that such 
an act should never have been passed, and he praised the Americans 
for resisting a bad and dangerous law. The majority in Padiament 
did not take this view; they repealed the law as a concesfion ?o the 
Americans, but declared that Parliament had a right to mTke what 

PU^inriH-P'^trf- \"* 'T' "^^" °f g^-^^t influence agreed with 
Pitt in holding that such a form of taxation without representation 
was unconstitutional and ought to be resisted cyicseniaiion 

Taxation in England. The People of London were delighted at 
the repeal of the Stamp Act and it seemed as if all the trouble we?e 
at an end So it might have been, but for that agreemenr of 
opmion bet;yeen the Americans and Pitt. In getting su^ch a power- 
thln.''"^-'" ?'"' the Americans found an implacable enemy in 
he new king, George III., who had come to the throne in 1760 at 
the age of twenty-two. There was then going on in England a ho 
dispute over this very same business of "no taxation without 
fp^hl"" ^^!°" ' ^"^ ^- ^^' t I'^P^t^ ^" ^hich the youthful king 
dispute was °^^°'^ " *° ^^^ ^^"'' ^"^- ^'* "' ^^^ '""^^ ^^^^ thi 
In such a body as the British House of Commons or the Amer- 
ican House of Representatives, the different parts of the country 
are represented according to population. For example, today New 
iork,_with over 5,000,000 inhabitants, has thirty-four representa- 
tives m Congress, while Delaware, with about 170,000 inhabitants 
has only one representative. This is a fair proportion; but as pop- 
ulation increases faster in some places than in others, the same pro- 
K'°h" ^\^'^*^^V° become unfair. To keep it fair it must now and 
then be changed. In the United States, every tenth year, after a 
new census has been taken, we have the seats in the House of 
Representatives freshly distributed among the States, so that the 
representation is always kept pretty fair. A hundred men in any 
one part of the country count for about as much as a hundred in 
any other part. 

Now in England, when George III. came to the throne, there had 
been nothing like a redistribution of seats in the House of Commons 
tor more than two hundred years. During that time, some old 
to\yns and districts had dwindled in population, and some great 
cities had lately grown up, such as Manchester and Sheffield. These 
cities had no representatives in Parliament, which was as absurd 
and unfair as it would be for a great state like Missouri to have no 
representatives in Congress. On the other hand, the little towns and 
thinly peopled districts kept on having just as many representatives 
as ever. One place, the famous Old Sarum, had members in 
I'arliament long after it had ceased to have any inhabitants at all I 



38 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

The result was that people who could not get representation in 
Parliament by fair means got it by foul means. Seats for the little 
towns and districts were simply bought and sold, and such practices 
made political life at that time very corrupt. Parliament did not 
truly represent the people of Great Britain ; it represented the group 
of powerful persons that could buy up enough seats to control a 
majority of votes. 

During the reigns of the first two Georges, this group of power- 
ful persons consisted of the leaders of the party of Old Whigs. 
They ruled England, and reduced the power of the crown to insig- 
nificance. Their rule was mostly wise and good, but it was partly 
based on bribery and corruption. The Old Whigs may be called the 
Aristocratic party. Among their leaders were such great men as 
Charles Fox and Edmund Burke. 

When George III. became king, he was determined to be a real 
king, to set the old Whig families at defiance, and to rule Great 
Britain according to his own notions. In these views the young king 
was generally supported by the Tories, whom we may call the 
Royalist party. In order to succeed in their schemes, it was neces- 
sary to beat the old Whigs at their own game, and secure a steady 
majority in Parliament by methods involving bribery and corrup- 
tion. 

Besides these two parties of Tories and Old Whigs, a third had 
been for some time growing up. It was called the party of New 
Whigs. As opposed alike to Royalists and Aristocrats, the New 
Whigs were the Democrats of that time. Among sundry reforms 
advocated by them, the most important was the redistribution of 
seats in the Plouse of Commons. They wished to stop the whole- 
sale corruption, and to make that assembly truly represent the people 
of Great Britain. The principal leader of this party was William 
Pitt, who, in 1766, became Earl of Chatham. 

We can now see why the antagonism between the king and 
Pitt was so obstinate and bitter. With a reformed Parliament, 
the king's schemes would be nowhere ; their only chance of success 
lay in keeping the old kind of Parliament with all its corruptions. 
So when Pitt declared that it was wrong for the people of great 
cities, like Leeds and Birmingham, who paid their full share of 
taxes, not to be represented in Parliament, the king felt this to be 
a very dangerous argument. He felt bound to oppose it by every 
means in his power. 

Now the debates on the Stamp Act showed that the same principle 
applied to the Americans as to the inhabitants of Birmingham and 
Leeds. "No taxation without representation," the watchword of 
Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, was also the watchword of 
William Pitt. The king, therefore, felt that in the repeal of the 
Stamp Act, no matter on what ground, the New Whigs had come 
altogether too near winning a victory. He could not let the matter 
rest, but felt it necessary to take it up again, and press it until the 
Americans should submit to be taxed by Parliament. This quarrel 
between George III. and the Americans grew into the Revolution- 
ary War. In that struggle, the people of England were not our 
enemies ; we had nowhere better friends than among the citizens of 
London, and on the floors of the House of Commons and the 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 39 

House of Lords. As a rule, the New Whigs and Old Whigs sym- 
pathized with the Americans; of the Tories, some went heartily 
with the king, while others disapproved his measures, but were 
unwilling to oppose them. Among the Americans there were a 
good many Tories, mostly of the latter class. 

P. 201 : This sending of the tea was not a commercial operation, 
but simply a political trick. It was George III.'s way of asking the 
Americans, "What are you going to do about it?" Such an insult- 
ing challenge merited the reception which it got. 

P. 202 : By sunrise next morning, the revenue ofhcers would board 
the ships and unload their cargoes, the consignees would go to the 
custom house and pay the duty, and thus the king's audacious scheme 
would be crowned with success. The only way to prevent such a 
wicked result was to rip open the tea chests and spill their contents 
into the sea — 

P. 2o8: His only reply was a proclamation calling for troops to 
put down the rebellion in America. Finding that Englishmen gener- 
ally were unwilling to volunteer in a war for that purpose, he 
hired about 20,000 German troops from the Duke of Brunswick, the 
Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, and other petty princes. 

Nothing went further to enrage the Americans and urge them for- 
ward to a declaration of independence than this hiring of foreigners 
to tight against them. 



"PARLIAMENT DID NOT TRULY REPRESENT 
THE PEOPLE OE GREAT BRITAIN." 



40 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Scudder's A New History of the United States 

[33] 

P. 126 : Now Parliament was supposed to be the choice of the 
people ; in reality it was the mouthpiece of a few powerful families. 
There was, however, one notable exception, William Pitt, called the 
Great Commoner, because the people at large instinctively felt that 
he was their champion and leader. Pitt was at the head of a rising 
party known as the New Whigs. Their aim was to make Parlia- 
ment really represent the people instead of being a political machine 
used by the Old Whig group. This party, though a small one at 
first, was, in fact, fighting for constitutional liberty in England. 

When George III. came to the throne, a new, or more strictly 
speaking, the revival of an old force in government was seen. As 
the Stuart kings had tried to establish a nearly absolute monarchy, 
so George III. was determined to be the real ruler of the country. 
He drew about him the Tory party, and undertook by means of his 
cabinet to manage the affairs of England and her colonies. It is 
needful to bear this in mind, if one would understand the attitude 
which America bore to England. 

P. 128: There was nothing unusual in the attitude which England 
took toward the colonies. They belonged to her according to the 
theory of the time, and moreover she had just been waging a costly 
war. 

P. 129: "Taxation without representation is Tyranny." — This 
sentence became a watchword in America during the exciting times 
which followed. The people meant by the phrase that they were as 
much Englishmen as those who lived in England. They said that 
for Parliament to tax them without giving them a voice in making 
the laws, either in Parliament or in their own assemblies, was to 
treat them as if they were a subject people. 

The force of the watchword is more apparent if we consider that 
the American people were far more directly and completely repre- 
sented in their assemblies than the English were in Parliament. The 
right to vote for members of Parliament was confined to certain 
classes in England, and the members elected did not in any special 
way represent the interests of the place where they were elected. 
In America, all but a few men had the right to vote, and the mem- 
bers elected to the assemblies spoke for their neighbors. 

P. 133: The effect was felt in England, where a small party in 
Parliament upheld the colonists. In the House of Commons William 
Pitt uttered the memorable words : "The gentlemen tell us that 
America is obstinate, America is almost in open rebellion. Sir, I 
rejoice that America has resisted! Three millions of people, so dead 
to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, 
would have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the rest." 

P. 136: There was no quarrel between the king's ministry and 
Parliament, but the colonies for some time maintained the position 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 41 

that they were loyal subjects of the king and resisted only the illegal 
acts of Parliament. 

P. 150: And yet the cause of the Americans was upheld by some 
of the greatest Englishmen of the day, who perceived clearly that 
the cause was one of free government, and that England was 
deeply concerned. Edmund Burke, one of the most far-sighted 
statesmen of the time, spoke earnestly in Parliament against the 
policy the King was pursuing. The Earl of Chatham, also, in the 
House of Lords, though failing in strength of body, was unceasing 
in his opposition to the repressive policy. 

P. 173: But King George, whose insanity was gaining on him, 
hated the Earl of Chatham with a furious hatred, and utterly refused 
to call him to his aid as prime minister. He might even have been 
compelled to call him, and Chatham might even then have restored 
peace and formed some kind of union between Great Britain and 
America, but he died shortly after. 



"GEORGE III. UNDERTOOK BY MEANS OF HIS 

CABINET TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF 

ENGLAND AND HER COLONIES." 



42 TPIE A]ME1UCAN REVOLUTION 

From Thomas' History of the United States 
[40] 

P. 81 : In England, law-makers were, or professed to be, elected 
by the people to represent them, and so the people had a voice in 
laying their own taxes ; but the colonists were not represented in 
the British Parliament, and so if Parliament laid taxes npon the 
colonists there would be "taxation without representation", which 
was contrary to the custom and principles of the colonists. 

P. 82: . . . and that colonies existed for the good of the mother 
country was an axiom of most governments. 

P. 83 : In considering the relations between England and the 
colonies, it must be remembered that the English government at 
this time was very corrupt, and bribery was recognized, even by the 
officers of state, as a regular means of securing legislation. The 
House of Commons no longer represented the English people, for 
in a population of about 8,000,000, there were less than 175,000 voters. 
The election districts had not been changed for a very long time, 
large cities had grown up without any representation at all, and other 
districts represented a very small population. In one place. Old 
Sarum, three voters elected two members of Parliament. By this 
means many members of Parliament were chosen according to the 
wish of those of the nobility who were large landlords, and con- 
trolled the votes of their tenants. As a matter of fact, for a good 
part of the eighteenth century the House of Commons was ruled by 
the House of Lords. 

Notwithstanding that the British Parliament was so little of a 
representative body, it is likely that most of their measures relating 
to the colonies were fairly in accord with the common sentiments of 
the people, for neither the people nor the Parliament understood 
the real state of affairs. 

Foot Note: The great William Pitt entered Parliament (i735) 
as a member for Old Sarum, owing his election to the influence of 
the noble landowner of that district. 

P. 85: There was little opposition to the passage of the act in 
Parliament, Colonel Isaac Barre making the only strong speech 
against it. In this speech he repudiated the idea that the colonists 
owed anything to English care, but claimed that her neglect had 
rather stimulated them. This speech, as well as others, gained him 
the admiration of the Americans, and they adopted as their own a 
phrase he used on another occasion when he called them "Sons of 
Liberty." 

P. 87: William Pitt, in the House of Commons, said, "I rejoice 
that America has resisted" ; but he also said, "I assert the authority 
of this kingdom over the colonists to be sovereign and supreme in 
every circumstance of government and legislation whatever — Tax- 
ation is no part of the legislative or governing power. Taxes are a 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 43 

voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone." Moved by all 
these things, Parliament, in 1766, repealed the Stamp Act, but at 
the same time passed a Declaratory Act, setting forth that "the 
crown, with the advice and consent of Parliament," "had, hath, and 
of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and 
statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and 
peoples of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain in all 
cases whatever." 

It is important to remember that the object of this taxation was 
not to help pay the expenses of the government at home, nor was it 
to help pay the interest on the debt, but all the expected revenue was 
to be spent in or for the colonies themselves. 

P. 88: The grounds of their objection were that the money was 
raised without their consent, and that the taxes were laid by a body 
in which they had no representation. 

P. 93 : William Pitt, now become Earl of Chatham, was prevented 
by ill health from taking any part in political matters ; . . . 

P. 95 : Though Burke, Barre, and Chatham opposed these bills, 
they were passed by large majorities in Parliament. 

P. 103 : There was now presented the curious spectacle of a Con- 
gress fighting against the armies of the king, and exercising many 
of the prerogatives of an independent government, and yet protest- 
ing that it had no wish for independence. 



PICTURE OF THE CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 
PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION AND OF THE 
EFFORTS MADE BY PROMINENT ENG- 
LISHMEN IN FAVOR OF THE 
COLONIES. 



BOOKS IN USE MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS 

AGO 



GROUP TWO 

Text-books 

which 

deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 

make some reference to general political conditions in England 

prior to the American Revolution, 

and mention some prominent Englishmen 

who rendered services to the Americans. 



From Gilman's The Making of the American Nation 

[17] 

P. 8 : The Americans had no desire to be represented in the home 
government, and they did not complain that they were constrained in 
their personal liberty; but they objected to the navigation laws that 
kept them from buying and selling where they pleased, and they com- 
plained that they were arbitrarily taxed in vexatious ways. 

P. 13 : The intention of the British government was to make all 
American trade profitable to England only ; and next to govern 
the colonies from England, not allowing the inhabitants any voice in 
the matter. The ministers of the king told the English people that 
taxes upon the Americans would make their own lighter, as I have 
shown. They were mistaken in thinking that the colonists would 
bear such an imposition. 

P. 43 : When King George the Third heard that the Stamp Act, 
which was a favorite of his, had been resisted, — in fact, that it was 
not allowed to go into effect anywhere, — he was very wroth. He 
was an obstinate, self-willed man, very fond of authority, and espe- 
cially determined that his subjects, English and American, should 
not share his power. He was not a good king for England at that 
time. 

The people of the mother-country were not truly represented by 
the rulers. From the king down, those in authority lacked the kind 
feeling for their American brethren that was felt by most of the 
middle class of Englishmen. Britons generally loved liberty quite 
as much as the Americans, and they professed to like fair play. 
They did not all, or most of thein, think that the stamp act was 
right, and there were not wanting men among them who dared to 
speak out plainly in favor of repealing. 

William Pitt was one of these outspoken men. He made a great 
speech in Parliament in which he said, "I shall never own the 
justice of taxing America internally, until she enjoys the right of 
representation ... I rejoice that America has resisted." The 
great orator, Edmund Burke, was another. 

P. 52: In studying this period of our history, we must not forget 
that all Englishmen did not think with the king, and that all Amer- 
icans even did not feel sure that the colonists were right. . . . 

P. 76: If the war had been popular in England, the difficulty 
would not have been so great. The citizens of London were very 
much opposed to fighting their brethren, and so were many of the 
people of other cities. 



"THE PEOPLE OF THE MOTflER COUNTRY 

WERE NOT TRULY REPRESENTED BY 

THE RULERS." 

m 



48 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Higginson's Young Folks' History of the 
United States 

[20] 

P. 160: When we think about the Revolutionary War, we are 
very apt to suppose that the colonies deliberately came together, 
and resolved to throw off the yoke of Great Britain. But this was 
not the case at all. When the troubles began, most of the people 
supposed themselves to be very loyal ; and they were ready to shout 
"God save King George 1" Even after they had raised armies, and 
had begun to fight, the Continental Congress said, "We have not 
raised armies with the ambitious design of separating from Great 
Britain, and establishing independent States." They would have 
been perfectly satisfied to go on as they were, if the British Gov- 
ernment had only treated them in a manner they thought just; that 
is, if Great Britain either had not taxed them, or had let them send 
representatives to parliament in return for paying taxes. This 
wish was considered perfectly reasonable by many of the wisest 
Englishmen of that day ; and these statesmen would have gladly 
consented to either of these measures. But King George III. and 
his advisers would not consent; . . . 

P. 161 : There was nothing very bad about the law called the 
"Stamp Act", in itself ; and Englishmen would not have complained 
of it at home. . . . Even in the British Parliament, when the 
Stamp Act was being discussed, there were persons who had been in 
America, and who declared that the imposed law was very unjust. 
The member to whom the people of America felt most grateful, 
was Colonel Barre, who had fought under General Wolfe at the 
taking of Quebec. 

P. 165 : Similar things happened in other States ; so that nobody 
dared to act as stamp-officer, and the law was never enforced. The 
news went quickly to England ; and, while the king and his ministers 
were enraged, there were many in parliament to defend the cause 
of the Americans. 

The statesman, William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, said, "The gentle- 
man tells us that America is obstinate; America is almost in open 
rebellion. / rejoice that America has resisted." 

By the strong efforts of such men as Lord Chatham, the Stamp 
Act was repealed in just a year from its passage; . . . 

P. 169: This affair made an intense excitement; and Captain 
Preston (who had given the order to fire, at the Boston Massacre) 
was tried for murder. But some of the leading lawyers of Boston, 
who were also eminent patriots, defended him on the ground that 
he had done his duty as an officer ; and he was acquitted. . . . 

P. 171 : . . . and men felt more and more disposed to resist 
what they thought the unlawful acts of King George and his ministry. 

P. 174: Instead of this, it made them (the colonies) unite more 
firmly, and take up the cause of Boston as their own. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 49 

This was just what the wisest men in the British parliament, 
such as Edmund Burke and Charles James Fox, had predicted. 
They had warned the government that the American people would 
be driven into open rebellion by such measures. But King George 
was a very obstinate man, and used all his influence in parliament 
to push such laws through. 

P. 176: Then we must remember that there were other men, and 
often good men, too, who felt very sad about all this, and who 
thought that it was very wrong to resist King George, and that it 
would ruin the colonies even to attempt such a thing; and who 
tried, with tears in their eyes, to persuade the patriots to listen to 
reason. These were generally the rich and prosperous men, and 
those who held offices under the British government; in short, the 
people who had most to lose by war in any case. 



DISTINCTION BETWEEN ATTITUDE OF THE 
KING AND OF PROMINENT ENGLISH- 
MEN INDICATED. 



50 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Johnston's History of the United States 

[22] 

P. 8i : The British government was neither wise nor prudent. 
Most of its power was in the hands of the ParHament, which was 
not elected by the whole people. By artful contrivance or by acci- 
dent, the laws of election were such that a few rich men, nobles or 
landowners, controlled the election of most of the members of the 
House of Commons. In most matters, these richer men were divided 
into two parties, which opposed one another. In regard to Amer- 
ican affairs, they were now united by reason of heavy taxes in a 
claim which could not help making them the enemy of the colonies. 

. . . The Parliament had forced the kings to yield to it the power 
to lay taxes in Great Britain : it now began to claim a right to lay 
taxes on the colonies, even against the will of the colonies them- 
selves . . . 

P. 82: On this question, of "Taxation without Representation," 
the Parliament and the colonies were now to quarrel for twelve 
years until force was used ; then came the Revolutionary War. 

P. 84: The British government was taken aback by the stir in 
America. English manufacturers petitioned for the repeal of the 
Stamp Act, for the American merchants and people had agreed not 
to buy any more English goods until the repeal should take place. 
Pitt and other friends of the colonies in Parliament urged the 
repeal. Finally, there was a change of government in Great Britain, 
another political party came into power, and early in 1766 the act 
was repealed. Parliament still declared its right to tax the colonies, 
if it should wish to do so; but the Americans were convinced that 
it would never again attempt to do so, and were willing to make the 
repeal pleasant for Great Britain. 

P. 85 : . . . but the colonists in general were very anxious 
to show that they were "loyal subjects of the King — God bless 
him!" . . . 

At first, they only suggested different means by which members 
from the colonies might be admitted to Parliament. Many eminent 
men in Great Britain desired such an arrangement, and it is possible 
that it might have been successful. But the king, an honest but very 
obstinate man, had lofty ideas of his own dignity, and was deter- 
mined to make the colonies submit without debate. His friends in 
Parliament now began a new scheme, which increased all the pre- 
vious difficulties a hundredfold. 

P. 103 : The people in England had offered many expressions of 
sympathy for the colonies. A number of officers in the army had 
resigned their commissions rather than serve in America. Peti- 
tions against the war had been offered to the king and Parliament 
from many towns. The city of London had declared its abhorrence 
of the measures designed to oppress "our fellow subjects in the 
colonies," and had begged the king to change his government. But 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 51 

none of these expressions had any influence upon those who had 
power in Great Britain ; and, as the war grew angrier, English ex- 
pressions of sympathy for the colonies became fewer. , . . 

The hired soldiers from Hesse-Cassel, called Hessians, who could 
speak no English, were particularly hated by the colonists, and were 
accused of numberless cruelties during the war. 



CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVO- 
LUTION REFERRED TO, BUT NO ADE- 
QUATE MENTION OF THE SERVICES 
RENDERED THE COLONIES BY 
PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN. 



52 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Lossing's School History of the United States 

[23] 

P. 115: The colonists could not complain of the willful exercise of 
actual tyranny by the rulers of Great Britain. There was no motive 
for such conduct. They complained of an illiberal policy toward 
them, rigidly enforced, concerning manufactures and commerce; 
the exactions and haughtiness of the royal governors sent to rule 
them without their leave ; and above all, the exercise, by the home 
government, of the asserted right to tax the colonists without their 
consent, and without allowing them representatives in the British 
Parliament. 

P. 116: A young monarch, virtuous and of upright intentions, was 
just seated (1761) upon the British throne. Having confidence in 
his integrity, and having recently felt the justice of the government 
under the direction of Pitt, they were disposed to forget their 
grievances. 

P. 117: Had the young king listened to the counsels of wise men 
like Pitt, the Americans might have been loyal subjects during his 
long reign. 

P. 119: England was touched in a tender point — her commerce; 
and her merchants and manufacturers joined with the Americans in 
a demand for the repeal of the Stamp Act. The government was 
compelled to listen ; and on the i8th of March, 1766, the obnoxious 
act was repealed. Pitt was then in the Parliament, and with Burke, 
Barre, and others, was chiefly instrumental in accomplishing that 
result. The repeal gave joy in England and America. 

New trouble soon appeared. While Pitt applauded the Americans 
for resisting the stamp tax, he appended to the repeal bill a declara- 
tion that the British Parliament had the right "to bind the colonies in 
any manner whatsoever." Without this concession to British pride, 
it was said, the repeal bill could not have become law. But Pitt's 
expedient was hurtful ; for under the sanction of that Declaratory 
Act, as it was called, the British ministry planned and executed 
measures for taxing the Americans quite as odious in principle as 
the Stamp Tax. 

P. 120: This palpable attempt to enslave the Americans filled 
them with burning indignation. 

P. 122: A minority in the British House of Commons took the 
same position. Burke denounced the revival of the old statute, and 
said: "Can you not trust the juries of that country? If you have 
not a party among two millions of people, you must either change 
your plan of government or renounce the colonies forever." 



SOME REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 
PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION AND TO THE POSI- 
TION TAKEN BY PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN. 



BOOKS IN USE MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS 

AGO 



GROUP THREE 

Text-books 

which 

deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 

make no reference to general political conditions in England 

prior to the American Revolution, 

but make, at least, favorable mention 

of several prominent Englishmen. 



From Chambers' (Hansell's) Higher History of the 
United States 

[9] 

P. 216: One year after its passage the Stamp Act was repealed 
(March 18, 1766), to the great joy of America. 

P. 217 : It was the great ambition of this king to increase his 
power — to be a king in fact as well as in name. With this ambition 
went a dense ignorance of the character of his American subjects, 
and a stubborn persistency in adhering to a policy once formed. 

Side Note : The setting aside of the rights of the English in 
America would have prepared the way for the revoking of dearly 
bought civil privileges of the English in England. Many wise 
statesmen recognized this, and there arose friends of America, such 
as Pitt, Burke, Barre and others in Parliament, who opposed all 
oppressive measures. But the measures of the king, shaped by his 
ministry, generally prevailed. 



NO PICTURE OF POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 
ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION 
AND LITTLE REFERENCE TO THE 
SERVICES RENDERED THE COL- 
ONISTS BY PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN. 

65 



56 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Derry's History of the United States 

[10] 

P. loi : British merchants injured by the loss of American trade 
petitioned Parliament to repeal the act. William Pitt, the Earl of 
Chatham, Burke, and Lord Camden earnestly plead the cause of 
the colonies. 

P. 103 : Early in 1775, Lord Chatham introduced a bill in Parlia- 
ment which he hoped would bring about a reconciliation, but he 
failed ; for the Parliament would listen to nothing but the absolute 
submission of the colonies. 



THESE ARE THE ONLY REFERENCES TO CONDI- 
TIONS IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLU- 
TION AND TO PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN 
WHO FAVORED THE COLONISTS. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 57 

From Field's A Grammar School History of the 
United States 

[14] 

P. 131 : After the Americans refused to buy British goods, the 
merchants of England complained that they were losing heavily, 
and asked that the commerce between the two countries might be 
reopened. William Pitt and Edmund Burke, men of great influence 
and friends of the American cause, urged Parliament to repeal the 
Stamp Act. This, Parliament did one year after passing the act. 

P. 133 : A bill was passed to remove all the taxes, except that of 
three pence (six cents) per pound on tea, which was retained to 
show the colonies that England had the right to tax them. 



NO REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 
PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION AND NO FURTHER 
REFERENCE TO THE PROMINENT ENGLISH- 
MEN WHO LABORED IN THE INTERESTS 
OF THE COLONIES. 



58 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Fisher's Outlines of Universal History 
[15] 

P. 485 : The colonists all acknowledged the authority of King 
and Parliament, but they felt that they had brought with them across 
the ocean the rights of Englishmen. 

. . . William Pitt, in the House of Commons, eulogized the 
spirit of the colonies. The Stamp Act was repealed. 

P, 508: Edmund Burke, however, the great philosophical states- 
man, who had defended the cause of freedom in the American 
war. ... 



NO REFERENCE TO THE CONDITIONS IN ENG- 
LAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, NOR 
ANY OTHER REFERENCE TO THE 
PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN WHO 
ESPOUSED THE CAUSE OF 
THE COLONIES. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 59 

From Goodrich's Pictorial History of the United States 

[i8] 

P. 165: As will be hereafter seen, the chief ground of opposition 
to these measures was, that the colonies were not represented by 
any members of their own country, in the British government, and 
that it was alike unjust, dangerous, and contrary to the British 
constitution for any people to be taxed by the government in which 
they had no representatives to watch over and vindicate their 
rights and interests. 

P. 167: Though the Act passed the House of Lords in Great 
Britain unanimously, it met with opposition in the House of Com- 
mons. Colonel Barre, in particular, spoke against it with great 
warmth and eloquence. And when the question was put, whether 
or not it should be passed, fifty members out of three hundred 
were against it. 

P. 171 : The general assemblies of Massachusetts and Virginia 
went so far as to vote thanks to Mr. Pitt and the other members 
of Parliament who had done so much to effect a repeal ; and in 
Virginia it was proposed to erect a statue to the king. Mr. Pitt, 
Colonel Barre, and Edmund Burke, who had favored our cause in 
Parliament, received the thanks of the people, . . . 

P. 177: There is no doubt that in most of these transactions the 
mob were in the wrong; the source of the mischief lay, however, in 
the fact that the British government insisted upon keeping an army 
among a people outraged by a series of unjust and irritating laws. 
This conduct showed that the king and parliament of Great Britain 
intended to compel the colonists to submission by force of arms, and 
not to govern them by fair and proper legislation. 



NO FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE CONDITIONS 

IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, 

NOR TO THE SERVICES RENDERED THE 

COLONISTS BY PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 



60 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Goodrich's History of the United States, (Revised 
by Seavey). 

[19] 

P. loi : The attempt of England to impose taxes upon her Amer- 
ican colonies without their consent, led to a revolution which re- 
sulted in their independence, and the establishment of a republic 
under the name of the United States of America. 

P. 103, Foot Note, 2: The Stamp Act passed parliament by an 
overwhelming majority. Yet America found some friends in that 
body. (Here follows the celebrated answer of Colonel Barre to the 
speech of Charles Townshend.) 

P. 105 : Mr. Pitt and Edmund Burke were among the foremost 
advocates of repeal, which was at length carried (1766), but only 
by accompanying the repealing act by a declaratory act, asserting 
the right of Parliament "to bind the colonies in all cases whatso- 
ever". 

The joy of the colonies at the repeal of the Stamp Act was un- 
bounded. They manifested, in various ways their gratitude to Pitt 
and others, who, in Parliament, had advocated the cause of Amer- 
ica .. . 

Foot Note: Scarcely less lively was the feeling of satisfaction 
among the friends of America in London. Regarding Mr. Pitt as 
chiefly instrumental in the repeal, they crowded about the door of 
the House of Commons to receive him ; and in the language of 
Burke, "They jumped upon him like children on a long-absent 
father. They clung about him as captives about their redeemer. 
All England joined in his applause." London warehouses were 
illuminated, and flags were displayed from the shipping in the 
Thames. 

P. no: Parliament, early in 1775, rejected a conciliatory bill in- 
troduced by Lord Chatham, and passed an act to restrain the trade 
of the New England provinces, . . . 



NO REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 
PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 61 

From Holmes' New School History of the United States 

[21] 

P. 92, Foot Note: Edmund Burke (1728-1797) was a great English 
statesman, and the most brilliant of English orators. He was a 
member of Parliament from 1766 to 1793. In 1771 he was appointed 
agent for the colony of New York. He was the friend of Franklin, 
and always favored the interests of the American colonies. 

P. 95, Foot Note: In the debates in the British Parliament on 
this bill, (Stamp Act) Charles Townshend remarked, that the Amer- 
icans were "children planted by our care, and nourished by our 
indulgence." To this Colonel Barre made the indignant reply : "They 
planted by your carel No — your oppression planted them in Amer- 
ica! — they fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and in- 
hospitable wilderness, exposed to all the hardships to which human 
nature is liable. They nourished by your indulgence! No — they 
grew by your neglect; your care of them was displayed, as soon 
as you began to care about them, in sending persons to rule them 
who were the deputies of deputies of ministers." 

P. 104: The British ministry were confident that the colonies would 
soon submit, or be subdued. They felt only contempt for the 
courage, the steadiness, and the discipline of the colonial militia. 

Foot Note : It was contemptuously said in England, that the sight 
of a grenadier's cap would be sufficient to put an American army 
to flight. 

P. 128 : Proposals of conciliation, supported in Parliament by the 
Duke of Richmond, were rejected, because they did not concede in- 
dependence. When Richmond moved his resolutions, they were 
opposed by Chatham, in Chatham's last speech. The old earl, 
recently risen from a sick-bed, feeble with age and tottering with 
gout, rested on his son and his son-in-law, and denounced the pro- 
posal in the House of Lords. 

P. 129, Foot Note ; In this speech he said, "I am old and infirm ; I 
have one foot, more than one foot, in the grave. I rejoice that the 
grave has not closed upon me; that I am still able to vote against 
the dismemberment of this ancient and most noble monarchy. Let 
us at least make one effort, and if we must fall, let us fall like 
men I" 



NO REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 

PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. PITT ONLY 

MENTIONED WHEN HE SPOKE AGAINST 

SEPARATION OF THE COLONIES FROM 

ENGLAND. 



62 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Montgomery's The Leading Facts of American 
History 

[27] 

P. 149: During the war, and for a long time before it, the laws 
which forbade the colonists to trade with any country except Great 
Britain had not been enforced. . . . 

Now, all this profitable commerce was to stop. A new king — 
George III. — had come to the throne of England. He was con- 
scientious but narrow-minded, obstinate, and at times crazy. The 
new government was determined that the old laws should be carried 
out. ... In Boston and other large towns the king's officers began 
to break into men's houses and shops and search them for smuggled 
goods. 

Foot Note : The officers did this by general warrants called "Writs 
of Assistance". These were search-warrants in blank. 

P. 150: It began to look as though the king and his "friends" 
meant to ruin every merchant and ship-builder in the country. 

P. 151 : The best men in Parliament — such men as William Pitt 
and Edmund Burke — took the side of the colonists. Burke said that 
if the king undertook to tax the Americans against their will he 
would find it as hard a job as the farmer did who tried to shear a 
wolf instead of a sheep. 

Foot Note : Pitt thought it was not right to tax America ; Burke 
thought it was not wise to do so. 

P. 152: When news of these vigorous proceedings reached Lon- 
don, William Pitt said in Parliament, "In my opinion, this kingdom 
has no right to lay a tax on the colonies ... I rejoice that 
America has resisted". The Stamp Act was speedily repealed 
(1766), much to the delight of many people in England as well as 
of the colonists. 

P. 153: But the Americans were not caught in this trap. They 
saw that George III. was endeavoring to exalt his own power and 
deprive them of theirs, and that the tax was for that purpose. 

P. 154: Parliament again made the mistake of supposing that our 
forefathers did not mean what they said. 

P. 156, Foot Note: Yet this same Congress (October 26, 1774) 
sent a petition to the king, imploring him, "as the loving father of 
your whole people", to redress their wrongs. They might as well 
have petitioned the "Great Stone Face" in the White Mountains of 
New Hampshire. 

NO PICTURE OF POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 

ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION AND 

LITTLE REFERENCE TO THE SERVICES OF 

PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 63 

From Sheldon's American History, (Mary Sheldon Barnes' 
Studies in American History) 

[34] 

P. 134: "In an American tax, what do we do? We — give and 
grant to your Majesty — What? Our own property? No. We give 
and grant to your Majesty the property of your Majesty's com- 
mons in America. . . . The gentleman tells us America is obsti- 
nate; America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America 
has resisted." — Pitt, to the House of Commons. 

P. 135: Barre, who had been the friend and companion of Wolfe 
at Quebec, sprang to his feet and replied : 

"'Children planted by your care!' No! your oppression planted 
them in America; . . . they nourished by your indulgence! they 
grew by your neglect of them : as soon as you began to care about 
them, that care was exercised in sending persons to rule over them 
. . . whose behaviour, on many occasions, has caused the blood of 
those sons of liberty to recoil within them. They protected by 
your arms 1 they have nobly taken up arms in your defence. . , . 
And the same spirit which actuated that people at first, will con- 
tinue with them still." 

But in spite of Barre's gallant speech, the Parliament voted that 
the Stamp Act should become law. 



NO REFERENCE TO POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 
ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



64. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Swinton's Condensed United States School History 

[36] 

P. 114: A very serious question now was, "Would Great Britain 
force the Colonies to obedience?" It did not; for, at the next 
meeting of Parliament, the STAMP ACT was repealed. 

There were several reasons for this. First, there were some 
noble men in England who took sides with America, for they be- 
lieved America was right. Secondly, British merchants, finding them- 
selves severely punished by the Americans not importing any British 
goods, petitioned for the repeal. 

Parliament repealed the Stamp Act, February 22, 1766. Those 
great men, William Pitt and Edmund Burke, then both members 
of Parliament, were advocates of the repeal. 



NO REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 

PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, BUT AT LEAST 

MENTION OF "THE NOBLE MEN IN 

ENGLAND". 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 65 

From Swinton's School History of the United States 

[38] 

P. 148 : The attachment of the American colonies to the "mother 
country" was never stronger than at the close of the French War. 
The colonists were proud of being descended from British ancestors, 
and gloried in sharing the rights of subjects of England. The trials 
and triumphs of the French wars made colonists and Englishmen 
feel more than ever like brothers. . . . 

How was it that the colonies began a revolt which resulted in 
their independence? The usual answer is that the attempt of Eng- 
land to impose taxes upon the American colonies without their con- 
sent was the cause of the Revolutionary War. 

This is true in part only. The imposition of taxes was the occa- 
sion of the revolt of the colonies; but its cause was that the whole 
history of the American colonies meant independence. Providence 
so designed it. 

P. 149: The colonists were, from an early date, unwilling to be 
taxed. Various colonial legislatures had denied England's right to 
tax the colonies. 

P. 153: Parliament repealed the Stamp Act, March 18, 1766. Two 
great men, William Pitt and Edmund Burke, then both members 
of Parliament, were advocates of the repeal. 

Foot Note: Pitt agreed with the colonists that there should be 
"No taxation without representation". Burke's argument was the 
common-sense one. He declared that it was worse than folly to 
throw away the good-will of three million subjects in America 
merely for the chance of a small increase of revenue. 

P. 157, Foot Note: Late in December of 1774, Franklin, then liv- 
ing in London as the agent of the colonies, called by appointment on 
William Pitt, Lord Chatham "to obtain his sentiments" upon this 
declaration. Franklin says: "He (Lord Chatham) received me with 
an affectionate kind of respect that was extremely engaging; but 
the opinion he expressed of the Congress was still more so. They 
had acted, he said, with so much temper, moderation, and wisdom, 
that he thought it the most honorable assembly of statesmen since 
those of the ancient Greeks and Romans in the most virtuous times." 



NO REFERENCE TO POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 
ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



BOOKS IN USE MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS 

AGO 



GROUP FOUR 

Text-books 

which 

deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 

make no reference to general political conditions in England 

prior to the American Revolution, 

but mention, at least, PITT. 



From Anderson's Popular School History of the 
United States 

[I] 

P. 127: The repeal of the Stamp Act caused great rejoicing 
throughout the colonies. Virginia and New York voted statues to 
the king. New York also voted a statue to Pitt, who, in Parliament, 
had declared "that the kingdom had no right to levy a tax on the 
colonies." A second statue was voted to Pitt by Maryland. 



NO OTHER REFERENCE TO MEN OR CONDI- 
TIONS CONNECTED WITH THE ENG- 
LISH SIDE OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

69 



70 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Anderson's A New Grammar School History 
of the United States 

[2] 

P. 145: Great was the joy of the colonists when they heard the 
good news. They lighted bonfires, raised banners, fired guns, rang 
bells, and, in their gratitude, voted statues to England's great states- 
man, William Pitt, who had boldly said in parliament that England 
had no right to tax America. 

P. 181 : In the British Parliament, Lord Chatham said : "We can- 
not conquer America. In three campaigns we have done nothing. 
We may traffic and barter with every little German prince that 
sells his subjects; our efforts are forever in vain. If I were an 
American as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed 
in my country I never would lay down my arms; never, never, 
never." 



THESE ARE THE ONLY REFERENCES TO MEN 

OR CONDITIONS CONNECTED WITH THE 

ENGLISH SIDE OF THE CONTROVERSY. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 71 

From Anderson's Junior Class History of the 
United States 

[3] 

P. 92, Foot Note : William Pitt, first Earl of Chatham, was born 
at Westminster, England, in 1708. At the beginning of the Amer- 
ican Revolution he was opposed to the measures of the British min- 
istry in the American colonies; but, at the close of a speech, made 
in 1778 in Parliament, in which he spoke against a motion to ac- 
knowledge the independence of America, he fell in an apoplectic 
fit, and was borne home, where he died in a few weeks afterward. 

P. 105 : The English government, therefore, soon after the close 
of the war, set up a claim that, as it had been waged on behalf of the 
colonies, they should bear a part of the burden. Accordingly, a 
law was passed in 1765 called the Stamp Act. 

P. 106 : Andrew Oliver, who had been appointed the agent for the 
sale of the hated stamped paper, was hung in effigy; his house was 
torn down, and he was obliged to resign the odious office. 

P. 107: ... a large body of soldiers were sent to keep them in 
subjection. The presence of these hirelings caused constant affrays, 

P. no: They did not desire a conflict with the "mother country", 
but were prepared for it, should it prove unavoidable. 



NO MENTION OF POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 

ENGLAND. NO MENTION OF THE GREAT 

EFFORTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE 

COLONISTS BY MANY PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 



72 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Magill's History of Virginia 

[24] 

P. 169: When the news of this opposition (to the stamp tax) 
reached England, it created a great excitement in Parliament. 
Many members thought America was perfectly right in her course, 
and one of them, William Pitt, rose from a sick bed to make a 
speech in behalf of the Americans. "We are told", said he, "that 
America is obstinate, America is in open rebellion. I rejoice that 
America has resisted oppression ; three millions of people so dead 
to all feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves would 
have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the rest." 



NO OTHER REFERENCE TO ANYTHING ENG- 
LISHMEN DID IN THE INTEREST OF THE 
COLONIES. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 73 

From Quackenbos' (Appleton's) School History of the 

World 

[29] 

P. 390: On the ground that the recent French and Indian War 
had been carried on for the protection of the American colonies, 
the English government resolved that the latter should share the 
expenses incurred. But the Americans remembered that much of 
their success w^as due to their own brave troops, and claimed that 
Parliament had no right to tax them unless they were represented 
in that body. Notwithstanding, in 1765 the Stamp Act was passed, 
requiring stamps of different values to be affixed to all deeds, notes, 
newspapers, etc. Upon this the indignation of the colonies blazed 
forth, and resistance was determined upon ; but the obnoxious act 
was repealed in 1766. 

Yet harmony was not restored, for other taxes were imposed, 
and British regiments were sent from England to enforce the sub- 
mission of the people. The king regarded the Americans as "rebels," 
and Pitt, their champion, now Earl of Chatham, as "a trumpet of 
sedition". "Four regiments", wrote George, "will bring them to 
their senses ; they will only be lions while we are lambs." Vainly 
Chatham strove to avert the conflict; his advice was rejected, and 
in 1775 the eight years' war of the American Revolution began. 



NO OTHER REFERENCE TO PROMINENT ENG- 
LISHMEN WHO SIDED WITH THE COLONISTS, 
NOR TO THE POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 
ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



74 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Ridpath's History of the United States 

[31] 

P, 179: The Most general cause of the Revolution was THE 
RIGHT OF ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT, claimed by Great 
Britain and denied by the colonies. . . . 

First of these was the influence of France, inciting the colonies to 
rebel. ... 

Another cause was the natural disposition of the colonists. They 
were republicans in politics. The people of England were mon- 
archists. The colonists had never seen a king. 

P. 180: Another cause of the revolution was the personal char- 
acter of the king. George III. was one of the worst rulers of modern 
times. He was a stubborn, thick-headed man, who had no true 
notion of human rights. His ministers were, for the most part, men 
of like sort with himself. 

P. 183 : The colonists had their friends in England. Eminent 
statesmen espoused the cause of America. In the House of Com- 
mons Mr. Pitt delivered a powerful address. "You have", said he, 
"no right to tax America. I rejoice that America has resisted." 
On the 18th of March, 1766, the Stamp Act was formally repealed. 
But at the same time a resolution was added declaring that Parlia- 
ment had the right to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever. 



NO REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 

PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, NOR TO THE 

SERVICES RENDERED THE COLONISTS 

BY PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN, 

EXCEPT THIS MENTION OF 

PITT. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 75 

From Thalheimer's Eclectic History of the United States 

[No. 39] 

P. 123 : The colonists insisted upon their privilege as Englishmen, — 
that as they were not represented in the British Parliament, they 
could not be taxed by it, but only by their own assemblies, which 
were to them precisely what the House of Commons was to their 
countrymen at home; and some of the best and wisest men in Eng- 
land declared that they were right. 

P. 124: Though hard things must be said of the British govern- 
ment as it was then administered, we ought never to forget that 
our fathers had the spirit and ability to repel English injustice 
precisely because they had been trained to the rights and duties of 
Englishmen. ... 

The throne of Great Britain was now occupied by George III., a 
narrow-minded and obstinate young king, who had succeeded his 
grandfather in 1760. He hated Pitt, the friend of America, and his 
ruling purpose was to exalt kingly authority at the expense of all 
popular rights. 

P. 127 : Surprised at the firmness of the colonists, Parliament, in 
1773, repealed all taxes excepting that of three pence a pound upon 
tea, . . . 

P. 128: In England Mr. Pitt, now the Earl of Chatham, urged 
Parliament to desist from the cruel injustice of oppressing three mil- 
lions of people for the act of thirty or forty. 

P. 130: (Notes). William Pitt (b. 1708, d. 1778), first Earl of 
Chatham, was America's warmest champion in England during the 
troubles that led to the Revolution. He had the reputation of being 
"one of the most powerful, vigilant, and patriotic opponents in Par- 
liament of unconstitutional and unwise measures." He opposed the 
stamp act of 1766, and from 1775 to 1777 his voice rang warning 
and prophecy to the British ministry in their oppression of the col- 
onies. In 1778 he rose from a sick-bed to speak in the House of 
Lords against a motion to acknowledge the independence of America. 
At the close of his speech, he fell in an apoplectic fit from which he 
never recovered. 

P. 133 : The Earl of Chatham declared in Parliament that no body 
of men ever surpassed the first American Congress in "solidity 
of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion"; and to 
Franklin he remarked, that the success of the American cause was 
the last hope of liberty for England. The debates in Parliament 
proved to the colonists that their contest was with the king and 
ministry, not with the people of England. Several Englishmen of 
rank resigned their places in the army and government rather than 
fight against America. 

NO PICTURE OF POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 
ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



BOOKS IN USE MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS 

AGO 



GROUP FIVE 

Text-books 

which 

deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 

make no reference to general political conditions in England 

prior to the American Revolution, 

nor to any prominent Englishmen who devoted themselves to 

the cause of the Americans. 



From Armstrong's Primer of United States History 

[4] 

P. 38 : . . . and the English Parliament thought the colonies 
ought to help pay it. This they were quite willing to do, but wanted 
to do it in their own way. . . . But William Pitt was not now 
prime minister, and those in power were not as friendly to America 
as he had been ; and besides, the king, George III., was very stubborn, 
and cared not nearly as much for the good of the colonies as for his 
own selfish plans. 

P. 39 : When the English Parliament saw how strongly the people 
in both countries felt about the Stamp Act, it was repealed. 

In 1773 all taxes were withdrawn except that on tea, and that 
was reduced to a small sum, the ministers thinking that the people 
would be content. 



NO REFERENCE TO THE CONDITIONS IN ENG- 
LAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, NOR TO 
THE PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN WHO 
LABORED IN THE INTEREST OF 
THE COLONIES. 

79 



80 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Barnes's Primary History of the United States 

[5] 

P. 90: Origin o£ the Trouble. While they were perfectly will- 
ing to tax themselves for England, they denied her right to tax 
them, because she would not allow them to be represented in the 
British Parliament, where the tax laws were made. In this the 
colonists were only insisting on their rights as Englishmen. The 
British would not listen to this reasonable argument, but continued 
to treat the Americans as though they had no rights whatever. 

The Stamp Act. — In 1765, a law called the Stamp Act was passed. 
It required the Americans to buy British tax-stamps, and put them 
on all their deeds, bonds, and notes, as well as upon their newspapers 
and almanacs. This was more than the Americans would endure. 

They, therefore, mobbed the men who were sent over from Eng- 
land to sell the stamps, and resolved to resist not only this law, but 
all other unjust laws. The day the stamps arrived in Boston, so 
profound was the sorrow of the people, the church bells were tolled, 
minute-guns were fired, and the vessels in the harbor hung their 
flags at half-mast. The people in every colony now pledged them- 
selves not to use British goods of any kind, and manufactures soon 
started up in spite of the laws forbidding them. 

A Congress was held in New York to declare the rights of the 
colonies, and societies called Sons of Liberty, were formed to 
resist their wrongs. From Massachusetts to Carolina, the people 
were full of indignation. The British Government, seeing the de- 
termined opposition of the colonists, repealed the Stamp Act the 
following year (1766). 

This, however, did not make matters better, for Great Britain still 
claimed the right to tax the Americans, and it was this claim alone 
which the Americans were resisting. They did not care for the 
stamp tax any more than they cared for any other, but they denied 
the right of the British government to tax them at all, unless they 
had a voice in making British laws. 

When, therefore, the Stamp Act was repealed, and, instead of 
it, taxes were laid on tea, glass, paints, and other articles brought 
into the country, the Americans resisted as stoutly as ever. Sol- 
diers were then sent over from England to compel them to obe- 
dience. . . . 

(Then follow paragraphs on The Mutiny Act, The Boston Mas- 
sacre, The Tea Tax, etc.) 



NO ATTEMPT MADE TO SHOW THAT MANY 
PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN TOOK AN AT- 
TITUDE DISTINCTLY FAVORING 
THE COLONISTS. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 81 

From A Brief History of the United States by Steele, 
(Barnes Historical Series.) 

[6] 

P. loi : Revolutionary War. Remote Causes, — England treated 
the settlers as an inferior class of people. Her intention was to 
make and keep the colonies dependent. The laws were framed to 
favor the English manufacturer and merchant at the expense of the 
colonist. The Navigation Acts compelled the American farmer to 
send his products across the ocean to England, and to buy his goods 
in British markets. American manufactures were prohibited. Iron 
works were denounced as "common nuisances." Even William Pitt, 
the friend of America, declared that she had no right to manu- 
facture even a nail for a horseshoe, except by permission of Parlia- 
ment. 

The Direct Cause was an attempt to tax the colonies in order to 
raise money to defray the expenses of the recent war. As the col- 
onists were not represented in Parliament, they resisted this measure, 
declaring that TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION IS 
TYRANNY. The British government, however, was obstinate, and 
began first to enforce the odious laws against trade. Smuggling had 
become very common, and the English oflficers were granted 

Writs of Assistance, as they were called, or warrants authorizing 
them to search for smuggled goods. Under this pretext, any petty 
custom-house official could enter a man's house or store at his 
pleasure. The colonists believed that "every man's house is his 
castle", and resisted such search as a violation of their rights. 

Tlic Stamp Act (1765), which ordered that stamps bought of the 
British government, should be put on all legal documents, news- 
papers, pamphlets, etc., thoroughly aroused the colonists. The 
houses of British officials were mobbed. Prominent loyalists were 
hung in effigy. Stamps were seized. The agents were forced to 
resign. People agreed not to use any article of British manufacture. 
Associations, called "Sons of Liberty", were formed to resist the law. 
Delegates from nine of the colonies met at New York and framed a 
Declaration of Rights, and a petition to the king and Parliament. 
The first of November, appointed for the law to go into effect, was 
observed as a day of mourning. Bells were tolled, flags raised at 
half-mast, and business was suspended. Samuel and John Adams, 
Patrick Henry, and James Otis, by their stirring and patriotic 
speeches, aroused the people over the whole land. 

Alarmed by these demonstrations, the English government re- 
pealed the Stamp Act (1766), but still declared the right to tax the 
colonies. Soon, new duties were laid upon tea, glass, paper, etc., and 
a Board of Trade was established at Boston to act independently of 
colonial assemblies. 

Mutiny Act. — Anticipating bitter opposition, troops were sent 
to enforce the laws. The "Mutiny Act", as it was called, ordered 
that the colonies should provide these soldiers with quarters and 
necessary supplies. This evident attempt to enslave the Americans 
aroused burning indignation. To be taxed was bad enough, but to 



8a THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

shelter and feed their oppressors was unendurable. The New York 
assembly, having refused to comply, was forbidden to pass any 
legislative acts. The Massachusetts assembly sent a circular to the 
other colonies urging a union for redress of grievances. Parliament, 
in the name of the king, ordered the assembly to rescind its action ; 
but it almost unanimously refused. In the meantime, the assemblies 
of nearly all the colonies had declared that Parliament had no right 
to tax them without their consent. Thereupon, they were warned not 
to imitate the disobedient conduct of Massachusetts. 

Boston Massacre. — Boston being considered the hot-bed of the 
rebellion. General Gage was ordered to send thither two regiments 
of troops. They entered on a quiet October morning, and marched 
as through a conquered city, with drums beating and flags flying. 
Quarters were refused, but the Sons of Liberty allowed a part to 
sleep in Faneuil Hall, while the rest encamped on the Common. 
Cannon were planted, sentries posted, and citizens challenged. Fre- 
quent quarrels took place between the people and the soldiers. One 
day (March 5, 1770) a crowd of men and boys, maddened by its 
presence, insulted the city guard. A fight ensued, in which three 
citizens were killed and eight wounded. The bells were rung; the 
country people rushed in to help the city ; and it was with difficulty 
that quiet was restored. 

Boston Tea Party (Dec. 16, 1773). — The government, alarmed by 
the turn events had taken, rescinded the taxes, except that on tea — 
which was left to maintain the principle. An arrangement was made 
whereby tea was furnished at so low a price, that, with the tax 
included, it was cheaper in America than in England. This subter- 
fuge exasperated the patriots. They were fighting for a great prin- 
ciple, not against a paltry tax. At Charleston, the tea was stored in 
damp cellars, where it soon spoiled. The tea-ships at New York and 
Philadelphia were sent home. The British authorities refused to 
let the tea-ships at Boston return. Upon this, an immense public 
meeting was called at Faneuil Hall, and it was decided that the tea 
should never be brought ashore. A party of men, disguised as In- 
dians, boarded the vessels and emptied three hundred and forty-two 
chests of tea into the water. 

The Climax Reached. — Retaliatory measures were at once adopted 
by the English government. General Gage was appointed Gov- 
ernor of Massachusetts. The port of Boston being closed by act of 
Parliament, business was stopped and distress ensued. The Virginia 
assembly protested against this measure, and was dissolved by the 
governor. Party lines were drawn. Those opposed to royalty were 
termed Whigs, and those supporting it, Tories. Every-where were 
repeated the thrilling words of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or 
give me death." Companies of soldiers, termed "Minute men", were 
formed. The idea of a continental union became popular. Gage, 
being alarmed, fortified Boston Neck, and seized powder wherever 
he could find it. A rumor having been circulated that the British 
ships were firing on Boston, in two days thirty thousand minute men 
were on their way to the city. A spark only was needed to kindle 
the slumbering hatred into the flames of war. 

THE ENGLISH SIDE AND LEADING ENGLISHMEN 

WHO FAVORED THE COLONISTS NOT 

MENTIONED. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 83 

From Chambers' (Hansell's) School History of the 
United States 

[8] 

P. no: In order to make the colonists pay the expenses of 
the French and Indian war, different laws were made to raise 
money. . . . 

These tax laws were made in England. English laws are made 
by men from different parts of the kingdom. These men represent 
the parts they are from, in the Parliament, or assembly of English 
law-makers. 

The colonists did not send representatives to this Parliament, 
and it should not have imposed these taxes, for TAXATION 
WITHOUT REPRESENTATION is not right. There were many 
brave men among the colonists willing to fight and die for what 
they thought to be right, so they determined to resist. 



NO PICTURE OF POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 

ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION AND 

NO REFERENCE TO THE GREAT SERVICES 

RENDERED THE CAUSE OF THE 

COLONISTS BY PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 



84 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Eggleston's A First Book in American History 

[II] 

P, 115: But, as time went on, the English Parliament tried to col- 
lect a tax from the Americans. The Americans declared that, so 
long as they elected no members of Parliament, that body had no 
right to tax them without their consent. But the men who gov- 
erned in England, did not think that people in the colonies had the 
same rights as people in England, so they oppressed the Americans 
in many ways. Without asking consent of the colonies, they put a 
tax on all the tea that came into America ; and when some of the 
tea got to Boston, the people turned Boston Harbor into one big 
tea-pot by pitching the whole shipload of tea into the water. 

P. 117: But neither the king of England nor the English Parlia- 
ment would repeal the laws which the Americans disliked. 

P. 118: The Americans at first were fighting only to get their 
rights as subjects of England. But since neither the King nor the 
Parliament of England would let them have their rights, they got 
tired of calling themselves Englishmen. 



NO REFERENCE TO POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 

ENGLAND WHICH CAUSED PARLIAMENT 

TO WORK HAND IN HAND WITH THE 

KING, NOR TO THE SERVICES 

■ RENDERED THE COLONISTS BY 

PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 85 

From Eggleston's A History of the United States and Its 

People 

[12] 

P. i6i : The Causes of the Revolution. Long before the Revo- 
lution there was much dissatisfaction in the colonies. Many of the 
governors sent over were tyrannical and dishonest. The Ameri- 
cans did not like the transportation of criminals, nor the action of 
the British government in annulling the laws made to keep out 
slaves. They were also much annoyed by English laws, which pre- 
vented them from sending away woolen goods, hats, and iron-wares 
of their own make, from one colony to another. Most of all, they 
disliked the "navigation laws", the object of which was to compel 
them to do most of their trading with England. 

The enforcement of these unpopular laws was in the hands of 
customhouse officers. The customhouse officers in Boston, in 1761, 
asked the courts for "writs of assistance", which would give them 
the right to search any house, at any time, for the purpose of find- 
ing smuggled goods. This produced a great excitement, and made 
the navigation laws still more unpopular. The trial which took 
place about these writs was a kind of beginning of the quarrel which 
brought on the Revolution fourteen years afterward. 

But England and the colonies, while always carrying on a family 
quarrel, had little thought of separating. Separation would prob- 
ably have come when the colonies grew too large to be dependent, 
but this might at least have been postponed for two or three gen- 
erations if the men who ruled England had not tried to tax the 
American colonies. Parliament passed, in 1765, what was known as 
"The Stamp Act". This law required that all bills, notes, leases, 
and many other such documents used in the colonies, should be 
written on stamped paper, which should be sold by officers at such 
prices as should bring a revenue to the English government. All 
newspapers were required to be printed on stamped paper. 

The American people quickly saw that, if the British Parliament 
could pass such an act, they could tax America in any other way. 
The cry was raised in all the colonies, "No taxation without repre- 
sentation"! Patrick Henry, a brilliant speaker, took the lead in the 
agitation in Virginia, and James Otis, an eloquent Boston lawyer, 
was the principal orator in Massachusetts. The rivalries and jeal- 
ousies between the various colonies died out in the new patriotic 
feeling, and the excitement ran like a flame of fire from New 
Hampshire to Georgia. There was everywhere a call for union 
among the colonies. . . . 



NO REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT MANY 
ENGLISHMEN FAVORED THE COLONISTS. 



86 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Ellis' Eclectic Primary History of the United States 

[13] 

P. 89: The Cause of the American Revolution: 

1. We have brought the history of the American colonies down 
almost to the Revolution. Before studying that period, let us try 
to learn what causes brought about the war for independence. 

2. There were thirteen colonies, with a population of more than 
two millions. The French and Indian War had given the Americans 
a knowledge of military matters, and had shown them their strength. 
It had, in fact, made them one nation. 

3. England was not wise in her treatment of the colonies. She 
wished to keep them dependent, and she passed many oppressive laws 
for their government. She would not permit American goods to 
be sent anywhere, except to Great Britain: She would not allow 
our forefathers to manufacture any thing. One of the leading 
British statesmen said the colonists had no right to make even a 
nail for a horseshoe. 

4. Few people would submit quietly to such injustice, but the 
Americans were not yet ready to rebel. Finally, England determined 
that the colonies should pay the expenses of the French and Indian 
War. This was unjust; but, besides, she v/ould not allow them to 
have any one of their number in the English Parliament, or lawmak- 
ing body, to protect their interests. This was called taxation without 
representation. 

5. George III. vi^as king of England. He was a narrow-minded 
ruler, who favored the severest measures toward his American 
colonies. He strove to crush out all hope of independence on their 
part, but the course he took was the very one which brought about 
their independence. 

6. The British Parliament passed the famous Stamp Act. It re- 
quired all newspapers, pamphlets, advertisements, and legal docu- 
ments to bear a stamp, bought of the British government. The 
prices of the stamps ranged from three pence to thirty dollars, 
according to the importance of the document. 

7. The Americans were indignant. The houses of the British offi- 
cials were mobbed ; the stamps were burned, or sent back to England, 
and the most violent speeches were made at the meetings held in 
every part of the country. 

8. The British government was alarmed, and repealed the Stamp 
Act; but, while doing so, took care to show the Americans that she 
still claimed the right to tax them as she thought best. She there- 
fore imposed a new tax on tea, glass, paper, and painters' materials. 

9. The anger of the Americans flamed up again. The mother 
country sent soldiers to America, and ordered the people to take care 
of them. This caused many fights in Boston, New York, and else- 
where, and several lives were lost. 



NO INFORMATION AS TO MEN OR CONDITIONS 

CONNECTED WITH THE POLITICAL SITUATION 

IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 87 

From MacMaster's School History of the United States 

[25] 

P. IIS : The English view of representation. — We, in this country, 
do not consider a person represented in a legislature unless he can 
cast a vote for a member of that legislature. In Great Britain, not 
individuals but classes were represented. Thus, the clergy were 
represented by the bishops who sat in the House of Lords ; the 
nobility, by the nobles who had seats in the House of Lords ; and 
the mass of the people, the commons, by the members of the House 
of Commons. At that time, very few Englishmen could vote for a 
member of the House of Commons. Great cities like Liverpool, 
Leeds, Manchester, did not send even one member. When the 
colonists held that they were not represented in Parliament because 
they did not elect any members of that Body, Englishmen answered 
that they were represented, because they were commoners. 

Sons of Liberty. — Meantime, the colonists had not been idle. Tak- 
ing the name of "Sons of Liberty", a name given them in a speech 
by a member of Parliament (named Barre) friendly to their cause, 
they began to associate for resistance to the Stamp Act. 



THESE ARE THE ONLY REFERENCES TO MEN 
AND COKDITIONS IN ENGLAND, HAVING 
HAD AN INFLUENCE ON THE CON- 
FLICT; PITT, BURKE, FOX, ARE 
NOT MENTIONED. 



88 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Montgomery's The Beginner s American History 

[26] 

P. 100: The war with the French lasted a number of years. It 
ended by the English getting possession of the whole of America 
from the Atlantic ocean to the Mississippi river. All this part of 
America was ruled by George the Third, king of England. The king 
now determined to send over more soldiers, and keep them here 
to prevent the French in Canada from trying to get back the 
country they had lost. He wanted the people here in the thirteen 
colonies to pay the cost of keeping these soldiers. But this the 
people were not willing to do, because they felt they were able to 
protect themselves without help of any kind. Then the king said, 
If the Americans will not give the money, I will take it from them 
by force, — for pay it they must and shall. This was more than 
the king would have dared say about England ; for there, if he 
wanted money to spend on his army, he had to ask the people for it, 
and they could give it or not as they thought best. The Amer- 
icans said. We have the same rights as our brothers in England, and 
the king cannot force us to give a single copper against our will. If 
he tries to take it from us, we will fight. Some of the greatest men 
in England agreed with us, and said that they would fight, too, if 
they were in our place. 

But George III. did not know the Americans, he did not think 
that they meant what they said. He tried to make them pay the 
money, but they would not. 



THE REFERENCE TO 'THE GREATEST MEN IN 

ENGLAND" IS THE ONLY MENTION OF THE 

ATTITUDE OF PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 89 

From Quackenbos' Elementary History of the 
United States 

[28] 

P. 85 : The colonies were willing to bear the expense of the war. 
But they claimed that Parliament had no right to tax them, be- 
cause they were not represented by any delegates in that body. 
Taxation without representation they would not submit to. 



NO REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 

PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, NOR TO THE 

SERVICES OF PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN 

IN FAVOR OF THE COLONISTS. 



90 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Quackenbos' School History of the United States 

[30] 

P. 190: Meanwhile the British ministry, no longer guided by the 
liberal counsels of Pitt, pushed through Parliament a bill, which laid 
an impost on wines, increased the duty on sugar, and provided for 
the more rigid enforcement of the regulations for collecting the 
revenue. 

P. 191 : The reading of these resolutions (Patrick Henry's) pro- 
duced unbounded consternation in the House. The Speaker and 
many of the members were Royalists, and a protracted and violent 
debate followed. 

P. 197: The merchants of America adhered to their resolution 
not to import British commodities, and the effect began to be felt 
across the Atlantic. An appeal was made to Parliament by London 
merchants ; and, in 1770, Lord North having become Prime minister, 
the offensive duty was removed from every article except tea, . . . 



NO LIGHT THROWN ON GENERAL POLITICAL 

CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE 

REVOLUTION, NOR TO THE SERVICES 

RENDERED THE COLONISTS BY 

PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 91 

From Scudder's A Short History of the United States 

[32] 

P. 104 : From the beginning, England had been wont to think of the 
colonies as existing for the convenience of England. English mer- 
chants sold their goods to the colonies; English ships traded with 
them. Laws were made by Parliament forbidding the colonists to 
manufacture articles. . 

P. 106 : Although Englishmen generally knew little about America, 
there were some who knew well how valuable the colonies were. 
They advised the king to be more strict in preventing smuggling, so 
that the ships which sailed out of, and into, the colonial ports should 
pay more money into the king's treasury. 

P. 109: If they obeyed Parliament when they had no voice in 
Parliament, they were obeying a tyrant. . . . 

They were so determined, and it was so impossible for England 
to make them buy the stamps, that the Stamp Act was repealed ; . . . 



NO REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 

PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, NOR TO THE 

SERVICES RENDERED THE COLONISTS 

BY PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN. 



92 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Swinton's First Lessons in Our Country's History 

[35] 

P. 74 : Well, very soon they found that they could make better laws 
than the king could make for them. Thus there was independence 
in the very air of America. 

This was the deep cause of the revolt of the colonies : Provi- 
dence designed that on this continent should be seen an example 
of democratic government, which means government "of the people, 
for the people, by the people". 

P. 76: The Stamp Act was passed in 1765. The colonists thought 
it was a mean trick, intended to make them pay taxes whether they 
would or not. 

P. 77: The result was that when the British government saw the 
terrible storm which the Stamp Act had raised in America, they 
had sense enough to do away with it. . . . 

You may imagine they hated the red-coats, and it was not long 
before collisions began. 

P. 79: Even then, if England had been wise, the trouble might 
all have been settled. But it seemed as though Providence made the 
British rulers blind. 



NO PICTURE OF CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 

PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, NOR ANY 

REFERENCE TO THE GREAT SERVICES 

RENDERED THE COLONISTS BY 

PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN, 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 93 

From Swinton's Outlines of the World's History 
[37] 

This text-book reviews History by treating certain epochs in gen- 
eral outline. It does not go into detail. 



ABSENCE OF REFERENCE TO THE SPECIAL 
SUBJECTS OF THIS STUDY NATURAL. 



BOOKS IN USE AT PRESENT 



GROUP ONE 

Text-books 

which 

deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 

give an account of general political conditions in England 

prior to the American Revolution, 

and give credit to prominent Englishmen 

for the services they rendered the Americans. 



From Channing's Students' History of the United States 

[49] 

P. Ill : In 1760 George III. ascended the throne. Born in England, 
he was ambitious to rule well and to regain for the monarchy the 
power which the kings had once wielded in the state. To accomplish 
this he destroyed the power of the old governing aristocracy and 
appointed men to high office who would do his bidding. 

P. 112: Regarding the system as a whole, it is impossible to say 
that it was to the disadvantage of the colonists, for what they lost 
in one direction, they gained in another. The Virginians, for in- 
stance, were forbidden to ship their tobacco to a foreign port, but 
they were given a monopoly of the British tobacco markets. 

P. 113: Pitt ordered the customs officials to do their duty, and, 
by a display of zeal, they endeavored to atone for their former 
laxity. . . . 

From the strictly legal standpoint the case seemed to be in favor 
of the royal side. Otis, therefore, boldly asserted that Parliament 
could not legalize tyranny and the use of writs of assistance was 
often tyrannical. 

P. 117: The Act (Stamp) in itself was on the same lines as a law 
in force in Britain at that time. ... It was not intended to draw 
the money thus raised to England, but to expend it in America in 
the purchase of food and other supplies for the soldiers. The evil 
feature of the act as a law was that persons accused of offences 
under it might not enjoy the benefits of trial by jury, at the discre- 
tion of the prosecuting officer. . . . 

The members of the latter body (House of Commons) were 
elected, and were supposed to represent all classes of people. Some 
of the electoral districts, indeed, contained no inhabitants. In one 
of these, Old Sarum, it was possible in dry seasons to trace the 
foundations of old buildings by the color of the grass ; . . . 
Yet each of these returned members to the House of Commons. 

P. 119: The English idea of representative government signified 
representation of all classes of the community, and not at all repre- 
sentation by population. The great mass of Englishmen belong- 
ing to any particular class had no vote for a member of the House 
of Commons, but other Englishmen of the same class had a vote. 
It was held, therefore, that all the members of that class were vir- 
tually represented. It was easy to extend the theory and to argue 
that the colonists were also represented, inasmuch as merchants 
interested in colonial trade were represented in the House of Com- 
mons. 

P. 123 : Pitt denied the right of Parliament to lay internal taxes 
on the colonies and rejoiced that America had resisted. . . . The 
same view was enforced in the House of Peers by Lord Camden, 
who urged that taxation without representation was against the con- 

97 



98 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

stitution. Their arguments were ably met in the Commons by George 
Grenville, and in the Peers by Lord Mansfield, who had the law 
clearly on their side, although expediency was as plainly with Pitt 
and Camden. The English merchants petitioned for the repeal of 
the Act, on the ground that the disturbances which it had caused in 
America were disastrous to colonial trade. Thus urged, and with 
the means of retreat pointed out by Pitt, the ministers brought 
in two bills, — one to repeal the Stamp Act, the other declaring 
that Parliament had power to "legislate for the colonies in all cases 
whatsoever." . . . The colonists, considering that they had won, 
rejoiced greatly, and no name was more popular with them than that 
of William Pitt. . . . There can be no question that Pitt was 
wrong in his attempt to separate the taxing power from the general 
legislative power, and that Mansfield and Grenville were right in 
asserting that one could not exist without the other. 

P. 138: To this policy, the opposition in the House of Commons, 
led by Burke and Charles James Fox, offered stout resistance, but 
their espousal of the colonial cause only deepened the hostility of 
the king. Chatham's proposals for a more conciliatory policy were 
set aside with contempt. 

P. 148: In 1776, Washington wrote, "When I took command of the 
army (July, 1775), I abhorred the idea of independence; now, I am 
convinced, nothing else will save us." 



PICTURE OF CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND PRIOR 

TO THE REVOLUTION AND SOME OF THE 

CLAIMS OF BOTH SIDES PRESENTED. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 99 

From Dickson's American History for Grammar Schools 

[52] 

P. 146: The genius of Pitt had been shown, however, in the Old 
World as well as in the New ; . . . 

P. 152: ... So smuggling became common, and it was often 
quite impossible to find out where it was going on. . . . 

P. 153: There were men in England who believed that the colon- 
ists were right; some of these men were members of Parliament, 
and they voted against the Stamp Act. 

But these friends of America in England were fewer than those 
who upheld the Parliament; . . . 

P. 154: Many of the members wished to repeal the act, and the 
question was fiercely debated. At last it was voted to repeal it, and 
great was the joy in America when the news came. It is said that 
the people of London, many of whom sympathized with the colonists, 
were rejoiced at the victory of their kinsmen over the sea. William 
Pitt, who was strongly in favor of the American ideas in regard to 
"taxation without representation", was loudly cheered as he passed 
along the streets. 

P. 156: A few far-seeing men like Pitt and Edmund Burke and 
Colonel Barre could see that it was the familiar English principle of 
self-government that the colonists wished to preserve; and they 
warned Parliament to let the whole question alone. . . . 

Since 1688, when the throne of England had been taken from 
James II. and given to William and Mary, Parliament had ruled 
the country. But there was now on the English throne a king 
who was not satisfied to be anything less than a real ruler. He took 
an active part in political aifairs. He set to work to make friends 
among the members of Parliament. 

Whom do you think he chose for his friends? The wisest and 
best men of England? No, for if they were wise and honest, they 
would not be willing to be led by the king, but would wish to be 
leaders themselves. So the "king's friends", as they came to be 
known, were usually the weaker men, who would do just as the king 
wished, or even bad men, who cared nothing for right and wrong, 
but wanted to be in favor with the king. 

It was one of the "king's friends" who proposed the tax on tea, 
glass, and the other articles; and the king was perhaps the loudest 
in saying that the colonists must be made to see that Parliament could 
rule them in any and every way. . . . For there were in England 
itself many thousands of people who elected no representatives to 
Parliament. No change had been made in the assignment of mem- 
bers for two centuries, and in that time many new towns — large 
towns, some of them, such as Leeds and Birmingham and Man- 
chester — had sprung up, and had no members in Parliament at all. 
On the other hand, some members in Parliament represented old 
towns which had dwindled away until there were no voters left to 



100 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

elect a representative. These places were sometimes called "rotten 
boroughs", and the men who represented them usually obtained their 
seats in Parliament because they paid money to the men who owned 
the land. Thus the British Parliament no longer truly represented 
the people, and many men in England were demanding reform. 

For many reasons King George wished no reform. He pre- 
ferred Parliament as it was ; whether the people were truly repre- 
sented or not did not disturb him. "Taxation without representa- 
tion" seemed to him perfectly proper if by it he could gain his 
own ends. So we find the king and his friends in Parliament al- 
ways against the colonists on this question, and from this time on it 
is really the king and his friends who are responsible for the com- 
ing of war. 

P. 163 : The king was taking with each succeeding year a larger 
part in the government. He had succeeded in getting a prime min- 
ister. Lord North, who was willing in all things to follow the king's 
wishes. In fact, some one has said that during the years of Lord 
North's holding office, "the king was his own prime minister". 

P. 166: ... in spite of the protests of Edmund Burke, who 
made a great speech in the House of Commons, and of Fox, Barre, 
and other men who saw the dangers into which the government was 
blindly stumbling, Parliament proceeded to punish the "lawless 
town". 



PICTURE OF CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND PRIOR 

TO THE REVOLUTION AND OF THE EFFORTS 

MADE BY PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN IN 

FAVOR OF THE COLONISTS. 



i 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 101 

From Fiske's History of the United States 
[6i] 

See extracts under "Books in use more than twenty years ago", No 
10, page 27- 



•PARLIAMENT DID NOT TRULY REPRESENT 
THE PEOPLE OF GREAT BRITAIN." 



102 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Gorton's Elementary History of the United States 
Book Two 

[67] 

P. 46: It does not appear that as yet they had gone so far as to 
object to English rule itself, but only to the way in which it was used. 

P- 55 : We have seen in the first part of this history, that about 
all the nations of Western Europe undertook to plant colonies in 
America. Their purpose in so doing was, almost without exception, 
to extend their own power and possessions and by this means to 
enrich themselves. . . . The theory was that colonies existed 
mainly for the benefit of the parent country. 

P. 58 : However, England had the power, and proceeded to tax 
the colonies, though even in England there was a strong party, led 
by Edmund Burke and William Pitt, that very strongly opposed such 
a policy. 

P. 60 : As Burke said before Parliament, "We never seem to gain a 
paltry advantage over them (the Americans) in debate, without 
attacking some of those principles, or deriding some of those feel- 
ings, for which our ancestors shed their blood." 

P. 62: In the stormy debates that followed, the bill (The repeal 
of the Stamp Act) was warmly supported by some of England's 
great men — William Pitt, Edmund Burke, and Colonel Barre. . . . 

In the debates, Pitt had said, "I rejoice that America has resisted 1 
Three millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as 
voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments 
to make slaves of all the rest" ; and Colonel Barre had said, "The 
Americans are a people jealous of their liberties, and who will 
vindicate them, if they should be violated." 

P. 81 : Although Parliament voted to send new supplies to the 
army in America, and continue the struggle, the war was mostly of 
the king's making and was not popular among the English people. 
They were not very much inclined to enlist in the army, and the 
king was compelled to hire an additional force of seventeen thousand 
men from Germany, mostly Hessians, to help him overcome the 
Americans. 

P. no: From the first, many of the best people and the wisest 
statesmen had felt that the war was a mistaken policy. 



MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THESE QUOTATIONS 
IS CHAPTER XVIII (Pages mil.), HEADED "LEAD- 
ERS OF THE REVOLUTION", IN WHICH ONE 
PARAGRAPH IS DEVOTED TO EDMUND BURKE 
AND WILLIAM PITT. CHILDREN WHO ARE SO 
INSTRUCTED ARE NOT APT TO BE UNJUSTLY 
PREJUDICED. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 103 

From Woodburn and Moran's Elementary American 
History and Government 

[91] 

P. 117: Unfortunately at this time the British government was not 
very wisely conducted. George III., an obstinate and in some ways 
a stupid king, had just come to the throne (1760), and he attempted 
to take the government into his own hands instead of allowing able 
ministers to rule. In England the prime minister governs through 
Parliament, and the king must act on the minister's advice. George 
III. sought to make his ministers do as he wished. By means of 
royal favors and money bribes the king controlled the votes of a 
group of members in Parliament who came to be called "the king's 
friends", while the Whig party that had been in control of the 
government for many years was divided into factions. 

Moreover, Parliament did not represent the people. There were 
populous towns that had no representation at all in Parliament, 
while "rotten boroughs", like "Old Sarum", where no people lived 
at all, still had members of Parliament because they had had them 
long ago. The members for these places were chosen by some lord 
or rich landowner. These conditions were bad and were most un- 
favorable to the adoption of wise and unselfish laws for the colonies. 

Besides these bad conditions at home and the free and inde- 
pendent spirit of the colonies, there were other causes leading to the 
quarrel with the mother country. 

P. 118: For many years these trade laws had not been enforced. 
John Adams said that they were old and out of use and nobody 
expected them to be enforced. Their violation was so common 
and smuggling was so generally practiced that it was costing the 
government three dollars to collect one dollar in Revenue at Amer- 
ican ports. 

P. 119, Foot Note: In trying to get a monopoly of her colonial 
trade Great Britain was doing only what other nations were doing 
at that time, but that did not make any difference with the colonies 
whose interests were interfered with by the trade laws. 

P. 134: The war had begun. But it must be remembered that it 
was not for independence that the Americans had taken up arms. 
Washington said, "When I first took command of the army I ab- 
horred the idea of independence", and he still hoped for "a lasting 
and happy union with Great Britain." Jefferson said, "Before the 
19th of April, 1775, I had never heard a whisper of a disposition to 
separate from the mother country." Franklin said that the colon- 
ists did not desire independence and that they did not oppose the 
measures of Parliament for this purpose. 

. . . In this quarrel, and in the war to which it led, the Amer- 
ican cause had warm friends in England. William Pitt, or Lord 
Chatham, the greatest English statesman of that day, said he re- 
joiced that America had resisted. He said Parliament had no 



104 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

right to tax America. Edmund Burke, another great English 
statesman, pleaded with Parliament to pursue a wiser policy towards 
the colonies. He said it was not expedient to tax America. Charles 
J. Fox, another English leader, spoke of Washington and his 
troops as "our army", and he rejoiced at American victories. These 
men were English Whigs who were disposed to favor popular 
rights and to oppose the king's power. On the other hand, many 
Americans favored Great Britain and some of them fought in the 
British armies during the war. Perhaps a third of the people in 
America, in some places a majority, opposed the Revolution. . . . 
So the war of the Revolution is to be thought of as a civil war. It 
was not entirely a war of the English against the Americans, but 
was rather a war between two parties, and in some places it became 
a very bitter partisan warfare. However, the majority in Great 

Britain favored the war against America 

The colonies did not wish to cut themselves off from the mother 
country. They were proud of the English name and dominion and 
they gloried in English history, but they insisted also upon having 
the rights of Englishmen. 



'PARLIAMENT DID NOT REPRESENT THE PEO- 
PLE . . . THE AMERICAN CAUSE HAD 
WARM FRIENDS IN ENGLAND." 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 105 

From Woodburn and Moran's American History and 
Government 

[92] 

P. 114: She had to do this (to organize an imperial system) at 
a time when her government was corrupt and when a stupid and 
obstinate king was coming to the throne who would no longer trust 
great ministers to rule. The cause of the American Revolution 
lay in England as well as in America, and one of its principal causes 
was George III. . . . 

He would not choose for his ministers the great men of the realm, 
like Pitt and Fox and Burke. He set about systematically to get 
a body of supporters in Parliament who came to be known as the 
"King's friends", and who could control enough votes in that body 
to do what the king wanted. George was able to do this by bribes 
and threats, titles and appointments, and by royal attentions and 
favors which were then, even more than now, powerful social forces 
in controlling public men. Thus the king managed Parliament by 
a kind of bribery. 

Members of Parliament did not represent the people. In America 
the representatives, who taxed and governed, represented a body 
of people who lived in certain definite local areas, in towns and 
counties. In England representation was of interests and classes, 
not of districts of people, and many of the populous manufacturing 
cities in north and central England that had grown up in recent 
years had no representation at all in Parliament, while little "rotten 
boroughs", like Gatton and "Old Sarum", consisting only of a green 
mound and a ruined wall, still had members of Parliament merely 
because they had had them long ago. Thus we see that Great 
Britain was facing new colonial problems with a stupid and wrong- 
headed king and a deformed and corrupt legislature. 

P. 117: Now these restrictive trade laws had not been carefully 
enforced. Colonial merchants, especially those in New England, had 
evaded them. John Adams said that they had ceased to be used, 
and their enforcement was no longer expected. Much smuggling 
was indulged in. It was the attempt to prevent this evasion of the 
trade duties that had led to the celebrated "Writs of Assistance" in 
1761. 

P. 122: The English people did not mean to oppress the Amer- 
icans or deprive them of their rights. We ought not to think of this 
quarrel over taxes and the rights of the colonies as between the Eng- 
lish people on one side and the Americans on the other. It was 
rather between two parties, the Tories in England and America, on 
one side, and the Whigs in both countries, on the other Pitt and 
Burke and Fox and Barre and Camden, the ablest statesmen of 
England, were on the American side. Pitt (Lord Chatham) said he 
rejoiced that America had resisted, and he spoke boldly for the same 
principle of taxation as that advocated in America by Hancock, 
Adams, Henry, and Otis. He said Parliament had no right to tax 



106 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

America. It had a right, he said, to legislate for the Americans and 
"to bind them in all cases whatsoever, except to take their money 
out of their pockets without their consent." Burke did not think so 
much of the right of taxation but he pleaded for the old practice (of 
requisitions), which, he said, had worked well. He thought it was 
unwise to tax the Americans, as it would cause disturbances and ill 
feeling. 

P. 127: Burke pleaded in vain for its (Tea tax) repeal and for 
full restoration of the old way of letting the colonies tax and govern 
themselves. 

P. 128 : The true policy would have been to do as Pitt and Burke 
advised, — to repeal the tea tax and seek peace and conciliation with 
America. But instead of this Parliament turned to the fatal policy 
of coercion. 

P. 135 : It was not for independence that they took up arms. 
Washington said, "When I first took command of the army I ab- 
horred the idea of independence"; he even then hoped for "a lasting 
and happy union with Great Britain". Jefferson said, "Before the 
19th of April 1775, I had never heard a whisper of a disposition to 
separate from the mother country". Franklin told Pitt in England 
that the colonists did not desire independence and such was not their 
purpose in resisting the measures of Parliament. 



"WE OUGHT NOT TO THINK OF THIS QUARREL 

... AS BEING BETWEEN THE ENGLISH 

PEOPLE ON THE ONE SIDE AND THE 

AMERICANS ON THE OTHER." 



BOOKS IN USE AT PRESENT 



GROUP TWO 

Text-books 

which 

deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 

make some reference to general political conditions in England 

prior to the American Revolution, 

and mention some prominent Englishmen 

who rendered services to the Americans. 



From Adams and Trent's History of the United States 

[41] 

P. 89: It is certain that a new spirit of loyalty and devotion to the 
mother country had sprung up, when in 1760, one year after the 
fall of Quebec, George III., then a young man of twenty-two, 
ascended the throne. He had a great opportunity to conciliate the 
colonists and to increase their growing affection; but he defiantly 
took the opposite course. 

The young king brought to the throne a very unfortunate mixture 
of good and bad qualities. He had an unblemished character; he 
had a strong will and was very conscientious and industrious ; but 
he was possessed with the idea that the power of the throne should 
be greatly strengthened, and that all opposition to such increase of 
power should be put down, if need be, by main force. His ambition 
was to restore to the Crown the power which it had unlawfully ex- 
ercised before the two English revolutions had made it subordinate 
to Parliament. For the accomplishment of this purpose he com- 
mitted the fatal blunder of pushing aside the great statesmen he 
found in office and of surrounding himself with ministers who 
would aid him in carrying out his own policy. 

Another peculiarity of the situation was the prevalence of a decided 
spirit of independence of one another among the individual colonies. 
. . ._ And James Otis, one of the foremost of American patriots, 
said in 1765, "Were the colonies left to themselves, tomorrow 
America would be a mere shambles of blood and confusion before 
the little petty states could be united." When George III. ascended 
the throne, the colonies seemed more afraid of one another than 
they were of England, and more likely to drift into separate nation- 
alities like those of Europe than they were to unite in a common 
effort to secure independence of the mother country. 

P. 91 : In the course of centuries the British people had come to 
recognize the principle, "No taxation without representation". But 
in the time of George III. representation, even in England, was 
absurdly imperfect. Boroughs of not more than half a dozen voters 
sometimes sent two members to the British Parliament, while some 
large towns like Manchester and Birmingham sent no representatives. 
The people permitted this bad state of affairs to continue, because 
the doctrine was held that every member of Parliament, no matter 
by whom he was elected, represented all the people of the kingdom, 
and not merely those who had chosen him. According to this theory, 
the colonies were as much represented in Parliament as Manchester 
and Birmingham ; and if those towns could be taxed without direct 
representation, there appeared no just reason why Massachusetts 
and Virginia and the other colonies should complain of the same 
method. 

But the colonists, and a small but very influential minority in 
Parliament, took another view of the case. 

P. 92 : But George III. stubbornly held that if the colonies resisted 

109 



110 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

the supreme authority of the king and Parliament, they must simply 
be forced into obedience. This doctrine, for which the king, and the 
king alone, was responsible, was the fatal error that cost Great 
Britain the American colonies. 

P. 93 : This belief shows how generally the spirit of the colonists 
was misunderstood. Only a few of the greatest and wisest of the 
British statesmen saw the danger in the policy proposed. These 
men, of whom Chatham and Burke were the leaders, did not deny 
the constitutional right of Parliament to tax all British subjects, 
but they held that it would be madness to try to enforce that right, 
since such an attempt would probably result in the loss of the col- 
onies. The very thing they feared and predicted took place. 

P. loi : The passage of these acts (Five Acts of 1774) was stren- 
uously opposed by several of the strongest men in Parliament. The 
opposition of Fox, Burke, Pitt, and Barre was particularly energetic. 
In the House of Peers, Lord Rockingham and his friends entered a 
protest on the journal of the House, and the Duke of Richmond 
declared, in his indignation, "I wish from the bottom of my heart 
that the Americans may resist and get the better of the forces sent 
against them". 



BLAME FOR THE TROUBLE PLACED SQUARELY 
ON THE KING, AND THE SERVICES REN- 
DERED THE COLONISTS BY PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN RECOGNIZED. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 111 

From Barnes' American History for Grammar Grades 

[43] 

P. 180: In each colony, self-government by the people had been 
tried, and the result was good. They had found that there was no 
need for kings. Yet they had no thought of breaking away from 
the mother country. 

P. 182 : On goods so bought they paid no taxes to England. Bring- 
ing taxed goods into a country without paying taxes on them is 
smuggling. 

Alerchants in England complained that they were losing trade in 
America because of smuggling, and in 1761 England tried to prevent 
it. . . . England had been liberal with her colonies, yet she had 
been kind only so far as kindness was gainful, and she did not 
always act with far-seeing wisdom. 

P. 183 : In 1760 George III., a man of twenty-one, had come to the 
English throne. He was jealous of the power of Parliament and he 
determined to lessen it. He schemed and plotted and became very 
much disliked by his subjects. The greatest, wisest, and fairest- 
minded of England's statesmen were against him. He cared little 
for the rights of Englishmen in England, and less for the rights of 
those in America. 

P. 184: The people of England had, by this time, begun to see 
that the Stamp Act was most unjust to their distant friends in 
America, and at length Parliament repealed it. 

P. 186: In all the unfairness that had been shown, it was not Eng- 
land that oppressed the colonies. Her best and wisest statesmen 
said that such harsh laws were wrong. It was the young and 
headstrong king, who abused the colonies. Since wise and good men 
would not help him in his course, he called to his aid those who had 
more craft and selfishness than honesty. He spent a large part 
of the vast fortune left him by his father, in bribing members of 
Parliament to do his will. . . . 

As in England, so it was in America. The Tories in the colonies 
took sides with the king, and favored the Stamp Act, while their 
neighbors, the Whigs, were against the Stamp Act, and all else 
that cut off their rights as Englishmen. Had the great Whig party 
in England been in power with Edmund Burke as its leader, it 
would have checked the king in his foolish course. 

P. 192 : There was, as yet, no strong feeling of union among them, 
and they had not overcome the feeling that each colony was for 
itself and none for all. Many people sided with the king, and 
were ready to fight their neighbors. 

NO SPECIFIC MENTION OF PITT, NOR OF OTHER 

ENGLISHMEN WHO EXERTED THEMSELVES 

IN BEHALF OF THE COLONISTS. 



112 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Barnes' Short American History by Grades, Part One 

[44] 

P. 130: In each colony self-government by the people had been 
tried, and the result was good. They had found that there was no 
need for kings. Yet they had no thought of breaking away from 
the mother country. 

P. 312 : On goods so bought they paid no taxes to England. Bring- 
ing taxed goods into a country without paying taxes on them is 
smuggling. Merchants in England complained that they were los- 
ing trade in America because of smuggling, and in 1761 England 
tried to prevent it. . . . England had been liberal with her colonies, 
yet she had been kind only so far as kindness was gainful, and she 
did not always act with far-seeing wisdom. 

P. 313 : In 1760 George III., a man of twenty-one, had come to 
the English throne. Ele was jealous of the power of Parliament and 
determined to lessen it. He schemed and plotted and became much 
disliked by his subjects. The greatest, wisest, and fairest-minded of 
England's statesmen were against him. He cared little for the 
rights of Englishmen in England, and less for the rights of those 
in America. 

P. 316: The people of England had, by this time, begun to see the 
Stamp Act was most unjust to their distant friends in America, 
and at length Parliament repealed it. 

P. 318: In all the unfairness that had been shown, it was not 
England that oppressed the colonies. Her best and wisest statesmen 
said that such harsh laws were wrong. It was the young and head- 
strong king, who abused the colonies. Since wise and good men 
would not help him in his course, he called to his aid those who 
had more craft and selfishness than honesty. He spent a large part 
of the vast fortune left him by his father, in bribing members of 
Parliament to do his will. . . . 

As in England, so it was in America. The Tories in the colonies 
took sides with the king, and favored the Stamp Act, and all else 
that cut off their rights as Englishmen. If the great Whig party in 
England had been in power with Edmund Burke as its leader, it 
would have checked the king in his foolish course. 

P. 326 : . . . There was, as yet, no strong feeling of union among 
them, and they had not overcome the feeling that each colony was 
for itself and none for all. Many people sided with the king, and 
were ready to fight their neighbors. 

NO SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO PITT, NOR TO 
OTHER ENGLISHMEN WHO EXERTED THEM- 
SELVES IN BEHALF OF THE COLONISTS. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 113 

From Barnes' Short American History by Grades 
Part Two 

[45] 

P. 3 : In each colony, self-government by the people had been 
tried, and the result was good. The Americans knew more about it, 
and believed in it more than other people that had ever lived.' They 
had found that there was no need for kings. Yet they were true 
to England and had no thought of breaking away from the mother 
country. 

P. 4: But some of the Englishmen at home thought differently. 
To their minds, a colony was simply a number of people living away 
from home, from whom money might be wrung. Their sole thought 
was, "How much gain can we get from the colonies?" 

P. 5 : Other nations treated their colonies in the same way, so 
England was no worse than they. 

P. 9 : On goods so bought they paid no taxes to England. 

Bringing goods into a country without paying such taxes on them 
as the law demands is smuggling. But the colonists felt that the 
law was unjust, and that breaking it was neither wrong nor dis- 
graceful. . . . Many leading merchants were smugglers. . . . 

Merchants in England complained that they were losing trade in 
America because of so much smuggling there, and in 1761, England 
tried to break it up. 

P. 10: If we judge her (England) doings by those of other na- 
tions, England had been liberal with her colonies from the very 
first. Governments were not very generous in those days. 

P. II : In 1760, when everything looked bright for England, 
George III., a man of twenty-one, as ignorant and stupid as he was 
well meaning, had come to the English throne. He was a king 
of the old style. He believed that the king's will should be the law. 
He thought that people were made for kings, rather than that kings 
were made for people. He wanted to be such a king as the Jameses 
and Charleses had been. He was jealous of the power of Parliament, 
just as they had been, and he set about bending it to his will. He 
schemed and plotted for power in dishonest ways. In a short time, 
he became very much disliked by his subjects. The greatest, wisest, 
and fairest-minded of England's statesmen were against him. He 
cared little for the rights of Englishmen in England, and less for the 
rights of those in America. 

P. 14: The stamp law was unfair. And, since the colonists were 
not asked to say what they thought about it before it was put in 
force, the law was an insult. 

P. 15 : The people of England had, by this time, begun to say, that 



114 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

it was most unjust to their distant friends in America, to keep the 
Stamp Act alive, and at length Parliament repealed it. 

P. 19: In all the unfairness that had been shown, it was not Eng- 
land that oppressed the colonies. Her best and wisest statesmen said 
that such harsh laws were wrong. It was the young, headstrong and 
ill advised king, that abused the colonies. He, in his conceit, was 
set upon gaining for himself such powers as English kings had 
and used before the time of Cromwell. Since wise and good men 
would not help him in his course, he called to his aid those who had 
more craft and selfishness, than honesty. He spent a large part of 
the vast fortune left him by his father, in bribing members of Parlia- 
ment to do his will. ... In his later life, he became so openly 
insane that he was kept in restraint. 

P. 20: As in England, so it was in America. The Tories in the 
colonies took sides with the king, and favored the Stamp Act, or 
anything else that the king wanted. Their neighbors, the Whigs, 
were against the Stamp Act, and all else that cut ofif their rights as 
Englishmen. 

P. 21 : The disputes that brought about the war, were not between 
the colonists and all the English at home. They were rather be- 
tween the Tories and the Whigs on both sides of the sea, neighbor 
against neighbor. Had the great Whig party been in power with 
Edmund Burke as its leader, it would have checked the king in his 
foolish course. . . . Had there been no war, this great country 
would probably now be a great branch of the British Empire. 

P. 33: There was, as yet, not such a strong feeling of union among 
them, as was needed at the begininng of a war. They had yet much 
to do to overcome the feeling, that each colony was for itself and 
none for all. Many of the people in each colony sided with the 
king, and were ready to fight their neighbors at his command. 

P. 35 : The little colonies wanted to have as much power as the 
big ones, and the big ones wanted to control the little ones. 



NO MENTION OF PITT, NOR OF OTHER ENGLISH- 
MEN WHO EXERTED THEMSELVES IN BE- 
HALF OF THE COLONIES. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT BOOKS 115 

From Bourne and Benton's History of the United States 

[46] 

P. 161 : Pitt was angry at the conduct of these colonial traders. 
He was told that the best way to stop such trade with the enemy was 
to enforce the Sugar Act. This he resolved to do, and the news 
caused a panic among the Boston merchants. 

P. 165 : It was hardly fair that they should regulate colonial trade 
in such a way as to increase their profits, and at the same time try 
to shift the burden of taxation from their shoulders to those of the 
colonists. But they could not be expected to see this, believing, as 
they did, that the main use of colonies was to increase the riches of 
the mother country. 

The king of England was George III., then at the beginning of his 
reign of sixty years. He was shrewd but narrow-minded, and dis- 
liked the colonists because they were inclined to manage their own 
affairs. He heartily approved Grenville's plan. As many members 
of Parliament were chosen through his influence, they voted as 
he wished. AH through the troubles with America the "king's 
friends" were on the wrong side of nearly every question. 

P. 166: In England multitudes of tax-payers could not vote. If a 
town centuries before had not been big enough to send members to 
parliament, it could not now send members, however big it was. At 
the same time towns which once had received the right to send 
members and had grown small did not lose the right. If now the 
same lord owned all the property in a town or in three or four of 
them, he chose the members. Scores of members were in reality 
named by great lords or by the king. The colonists would not have 
endured a legislature like that. Their objection, however, was that 
parliament did not represent them in the sense in which they under- 
stood representation. 

P. 168: Parliament hesitated to drive the colonies into open rebel- 
lion and ruin its own merchants besides. In March, 1766, the famous 
Stamp Act was repealed. ... 

As Pitt had urged repeal, the colonists, forgetting his enforcement 
of the Sugar Act, displayed his portrait in shop windows. New 
York and South Carolina voted him a statue. 

P. 175 : Many colonists thought that resistance to the English 
government had gone too far. 



THIS IS THE ONLY REFERENCE TO PITT; THE 

OTHER PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN WHO 

LABORED HARD IN THE INTEREST OF 

THE COLONIES NOT MENTIONED. 



116 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Burton's Builders of Our Nation 
[47] 

P. 144: Thirteen colonies lay along the sea-coast, all loyal to the 
English crown. 

P. 149: It was soon whispered about that his majesty, George III., 
was jealous of his prime minister's fame and wished to dismiss him 
from office. 

P. 150: The colonists felt that Pitt Was the best friend they had 
in England. . . . 

"Parliament must put a tax on the Americans", persisted the 
king's ministers. 

"They have their own parliaments called Assemblies", said Pitt. 
"Our Parliament has no right under heaven to lay a tax without 
their consent." 

P. 152: "Repeal the Stamp Act," he said to the stubborn king's 
ministers. "I repeat, my lords, it is not in accord with the English 
constitution." 

P. 153 : The stubborn king would have his own way in American 
affairs. Because Englishmen were too slow in taking up arms against 
their kinsmen, his majesty hired some Hessian troops to help the 
English regulars. 

Chatham again spoke out in the House of Lords. "You cannot 
conquer America!" he said. "If I were an American, as I am an 
Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would 
never lay down my arms. Never, never, NEVER I" 



THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE QUOTATIONS IS 
NOT NEARLY AS GREAT AS THE FACT THAT IN 
THIS AMERICAN TEXT-BOOK A SEPARATE 
CHAPTER IS DEVOTED TO WILLIAM PITT, AND 
THAT HE IS SHOWN TO THE PUPILS AS ONE OF 
THE BUILDERS OF OUR NATION ! 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 117 

From Elson's History of the United States of America 

[56] 

P. 226 : The colonies were not without friends in the Commons 
during the debate that preceded the passage of the law, the foremost 
of whom was Colonel Barre, who had fought by the side of Wolfe 
at Louisburg and Quebec. 

P. 229: It was Townshend, above all men except his sovereign, who 
was responsible for the Revolution. 

P. 232: He (George III.) showered favors on his obsequious fol- 
lowers, while men of independent character whom he could not bend 
to his will became the objects of his hatred. Pitt he pronounced a 
"trumpeter of sedition"; Burke and Camden were the objects of his 
wrath. . . . 

At the door of George III. must be laid the American Revolution. 

P. 226: When the addresses issued by this Congress (Continental) 
reached England, Chatham paid the following remarkable tribute to 
the men who framed them : — 

"When your lordships look at the papers transmitted us from 
America — when you consider their decency, firmness, and wisdom, 
you cannot but respect their cause. . . . For myself I must de- 
clare and avow, that in all my reading and observation . . . that 
for solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion 
. . . no nation or body of men can stand in preference to the 
Congress at Philadelphia. I trust that it is obvious to your lord- 
ships, that all attempts to impose servitude upon such men, to estab- 
lish despotism over such a mighty continental nation, must be vain, 
must be fatal." 

P. 241 : The principle for which the colonies contended was not 
misunderstood in England. In reply to the statement that the tax 
on tea was trifling, Edmund Burke (April 19, 1768) replied : "Could 
anything be a subject of more just claim to America, than to see you 
go out of the plain high road of finance . . . merely for the sake 
of insulting your colonies? No man ever doubted that the com- 
modity of tea could bear an imposition of threepence. But no 
commodity will bear threepence, or will bear a penny, when the gen- 
eral feelings of men are irritated, and two millions of people are 
resolved not to pay." 

P. 279: It was believed that he (Pitt) and he alone could yet con- 
ciliate America. The king, with his usual obstinacy, hesitated to put 
the government into the hands of his old enemy. He would prob- 
ably have been forced to do so by public opinion had not death come 
to his rescue by removing Chatham. 

"AT THE DOOR OF GEORGE HI. MUST BE LAID 
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION." 



118 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Foster's History of the United States 
[63] 

P. 136: Most of the colonists were thorough Englishmen. They 
were loyal to their country and proud of their origin. . . . King 
George had no more devoted subjects than were those in America. 
. . . But these Americans cherished the Englishman's ideals of 
right, justice, and liberty. . . . 

The colonies belonged to England, but the King and Parliament 
would not concede to them the same political and commercial rights 
as to England. . . . This theory of colonial government, then com- 
mon among the nations of Europe, gave England a temporary benefit, 
but finally resulted in disaster. 

P. 138: But when George III. came to the throne, 1760, he took the 
reins of government into his own hands. ... It was no easy task 
to get Parliament to yield to his will. But, by bribes in money and 
by the appointment of many members of Parliament and their friends 
to good offices, he secured control of a majority in Parliament, who 
worked with him to further his schemes. George III. was self-willed, 
arbitrary, and determined to rule England and the colonies in his 
own way, without regard for the wishes of the people. With his 
bribed Parliament, he soon began to modify old laws, to enact new 
ones, and to enforce obedience to the laws, and thus drove the 
colonies first into union, then into rebellion. 

P. 142: These difficulties, combined with the cry of distress 
from the manufacturers in England, led Parliament to repeal the 
Stamp Act, in March, 1766. But, with the repeal of the act was a 
declaration that Parliament had the right to tax the colonies "in 
all cases whatsoever". 

P. 144: But this was the very thing that the colonies opposed. 
They cared little for the tax ; everything for the principle. 

P. 148, Foot Note: The great William Pitt said of the document 
(The Colonial Declaration of Rights) : "The histories of Greece and 
Rome give us nothing equal to it." 

P. 149 : The people neither in England nor in America were wholly 
united. Parliament had a large majority favoring radical measures 
of King George, but some of the greatest statesmen, like Pitt, Burke, 
and Fox, were favorable to the colonies. In America the people were 
divided. The majority opposed the acts of England. 



CLEAR SUGGESTION OF POLITICAL CONDITIONS 

IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE 

REVOLUTION. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 119 

From Gordy's A History of the United States 

[66] 

P. 126 : In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries European 
countries planted colonies as a means of increasing their own trade. 
In accordance with this theory, England valued her American col- 
onies according to the wealth she gained from them. 

P. 129: The colonies had submitted to such indirect taxation of 
their trade and industries because (i) it was usual, the world over, 
for colonies to have their trade thus taxed by their mother country ; 

(2) the English navy protected the commerce of the colonies; and 

(3) the Trade Laws were not strictly enforced. 

P. 133 : The debate in Parliament over the repeal showed that 
many English Statesmen stoutly defended the colonies in their oppo- 
sition to the direct taxation without representation. Said William 
Pitt in a stirring speech in the House of Commons: "Sir, I rejoice 
that America has resisted! Three millions of people so dead to all 
the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves would 
have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the rest." 

P. 134: We cannot understand the real meaning of the Revolu- 
tion in America without looking into a similar struggle that was at 
the same time going on in England. Some Americans did not op- 
pose England and some Englishmen did not join hands against 
America. It was in each country the same kind of struggle — a 
struggle between hostile principles. There was taxation without 
representation in England as well as in America, and many English- 
men, like William Pitt, were as much opposed to it there as men 
like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry were opposed to it in 
America. William Pitt and his followers represented the true feel- 
ing of the English people toward America. 

At this time Parliament did not fairly represent the people of 
England. Great towns like Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and 
Leeds were not represented at all, and members were returned for 
boroughs that had no existence except in name. Such boroughs were 
called rotten boroughs, or pocket boroughs, which were owned by the 
great families. Long after Old Sarum, a noted rotten borough, had 
no population, a member, representing its owner, was returned to 
the House of Commons. In a population of 8,000,000 only about 
160,000, or one tenth of the men of voting age in England, could vote. 
A few great families controlled the House of Commons. Cer- 
tainly the mass of Englishmen could justly complain of taxation 
without representation. Among them was the great William Pitt, 
who urged upon the people the justice of parliamentary reform, 
with a fair and full representation of the English people in the 
House of Commons. 

P. 135: His (George III.) controlling purpose was to establish 
personal government in England. His desire for arbitrary power, 
together with his narrowness and bigotry, had much influence in 



120 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

bringing on the Revolution. He cared little for the rights of the 
'people. The more power they had the less he would enjoy. By 
the corrupt use of money he succeeded in controlling the elections. 
His desire was to make Parliament represent him and a few great 
families that were in the political ring with him. He maintained his 
influence largely through boss-like methods, keeping his followers 
under control by the use of an immense corruption fund. As long 
as a large number of small boroughs remained under the control 
of his friends, the king could maintain his tyrannical hold upon the 
government. 

But if the Americans should succeed in their struggle for "No 
taxation without representation," there was little doubt that in 
time Englishmen would succeed in a similar struggle for parlia- 
mentary reform, or "No taxation without representation" in England. 

P. 139: Again English merchants begged for a repeal. But the 
stupid king could not understand the Americans. Thus far he had 
failed. He now resorted to a trick by which he hoped to induce the 
colonists to pay a small tax levied by Parliament. 



PICTURE OF POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN ENG- 
LAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, BUT 
ONLY PITT MENTIONED AMONG THE 
MANY PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN 
WHO ESPOUSED THE CAUSE 
OF THE COLONISTS. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 121 

From Hall, Smither and Ousley's Student's History of our 

Country 

[68] 

P. 119: The colonists were loyal to the mother country, although 
they looked to her chiefly as a means of protection from foreign 
foes ; and England, however much she desired to control the colonies, 
was forced, first by civil strife and then by frequent foreign wars, 
to leave them largely to their own devices. 

P. 120: George III. was a well-meaning man, but he had an 
exaggerated idea of his own importance and greatness, and he was 
resolved to exercise the utmost of royal power. . . . But in an 
eff^ort to further exercise his power over his American subjects he 
lost for England, as we shall presently see, her fairest possessions 
beyond the seas. . . . 

According to the ideas of the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- 
turies, colonies existed only for the benefit of the mother country. 

P. 123 : It will be seen that the revenue thus raised was to be de- 
voted to the colonies, but they resisted the right of England to tax 
them and joined issue directly on the principle that they should 
control their own aft'airs. The colonists always maintained that the 
power of laying taxes for revenue in the colonies belonged to each 
colonial government and not to the English Parliament, for they 
were not represented in that body, and could not well be, as it sat 
thousands of miles away. The view advanced by the British, that 
they were as fairly represented by the English members as the great 
majority of English people were, seemed to the colonists utterly 
absurd ; the American idea was that each member of the colonial, 
legislatures represented a body of people living in some definite area, 
and the English idea was that the members of Parliament represented 
the different classes of society in the British Empire. 

P. 125 : There was stern resistance in the English Parliament to 
this act. The great Pitt and a group of liberal English statesmen 
contended for the same rights which the Americans asserted. They 
openly espoused the cause of the colonists and urged the repeal of 
the law. ... In America the repeal of the Stamp Act was re- 
ceived with the wildest joy. There were celebrations in every town 
and there were widespread expressions of loyalty to King George III. 



GULF BETWEEN THE KING AND THE MASS OF 
THE ENGLISH PEOPLE NOT SHOWN. 



122 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Higginson's Young Folks' History of the United 

States 

[71] 

See Quotations under "Books in use more than twenty years ago", 
No. 20, Page 48. 



DISTINCTION BETWEEN ATTITUDE OF THE 

KING AND THAT OF PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN INDICATED. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 123 

From Lemmon's (Cooper, Estill, and Lemmon's) The 
History of Our Country 

[73] 

P. 156: The Parliament which proposed to tax the American 
colonists did not truly represent the people of England. In the 
United States today, we know that members of Congress are elected 
from districts of nearly equal population; and as population increases 
much more rapidly in some parts of the country than in others, we 
rearrange our representative districts every ten years in order to 
prevent unfairness in representation. In England, however, members 
of Parliament had been originally elected from "shires" or "bor- 
oughs", as such, and without reference to population. At the time 
of George III. these parliamentary districts, never regular, had not 
been changed for 200 years. As a consequence, cities like Manchester 
and Birmingham, which had sprung up in recent years, had no 
representatives, while other districts, whose population had de- 
creased to hardly a dozen inhabitants, were yet allowed to choose 
members of Parliament. The votes in these "rotten boroughs" 
were controlled by the king and a few wealthy families. The 
people of the unrepresented cities had begun to complain of their 
unjust treatment, and they sympathized with the Americans in their 
cry of "no taxation without representation." 

P. 158: The colonies, moreover, were not without sympathizers in 
England. When Parliament met in 1766, a petition against the 
Stamp Act was presented by the London merchants trading with 
America. William Pitt, now old and suffering with disease, appeared 
in the House of Commons on crutches, and fiercely opposed the 
policy of the British government. "I rejoice that America has re- 
sisted," said he. "If her people had submitted, they would have 
voluntarily become slaves. My opinion is that the Stamp Act 
should be repealed, absolutely, totally, immediately." The result was 
the repeal of the Stamp Act before it had been in operation six 
months. At the same time a resolution was passed declaring that 
Parliament had the right to tax the colonies in all cases. Thus the 
principle of taxation without representation was still maintained. 



NO OTHER REFERENCE TO PROMINENT ENG- 
LISHMEN WHO FOUGHT FOR THE COL- 
ONIES, NOR TO CONDITIONS IN ENG- 
LAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



124 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Perry and Price's American History, Second Book 

[84] 

P. I : "The people, I believe, are as truly loyal as any subjects the 
king has; but they are a people jealous of their liberties, who, if 
those liberties should ever be violated, will vindicate them to the 
last drop of their blood." Thus spoke a member of the British 
House of Commons during a heated discussion concerning the 
British colonies in North America. 

. . . Like the other leading nations of Europe, she believed that 
colonies were particularly useful for trading purposes. One reason 
why England maintained colonies was that she might sell goods to 
them at great profit. So her Parliament made many laws that bene- 
fited the English merchants. 

P. 5 : We must not think of the colonists at that time as rebellious 
people, anxious to be rid of the mother country. Far from this, they 
were true patriots asking but for the rights of Englishmen. 

P. 6 : One of the rights an Englishman holds most precious is that 
of being represented in the law-making body that decides upon 
the taxes. It is true that the Americans had their own Assemblies, 
but they were not represented in Parliament, the English taxing body. 
And it was Parliament that had levied the Stamp Tax and had made 
other unsatisfactory laws for the colonists. Moreover, the colonists 
did not admit that a standing army was needed in America in time 
of peace. 

P. 7 : At last Parliament saw that a great mistake was being made 
in the treatment of the colonists. Within a few months it repealed 
the Stamp Act. But here the king stepped in and made matters 
worse. . , . We do not doubt that he meant to do right, but he was 
head-strong and conceited. He would not listen to his best advisers, 
but only to those who gave the advice that he wanted to hear. 

P. 21 : The Second Continental Congress even sent one more peti- 
tion to George HI. asking for fair treatment. The king paid no 
attention to it, but closed American ports and called the people 
rebels. 

P. 52: Our stanch friend, William Pitt, came from a sick bed to 
make a last great speech in Parliament. In it he said, "No man 
more highly esteems and honors the English troops than I do. I 
know their virtues and their valor ; I know they can achieve anything 
but impossibilities; and I know that the conquest of English America 
is an impossibility. You cannot, my Lords, you cannot conquer 
America. . , . If I were an American as I am an Englishman, 
while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay 
down my arms — never, never, never I" 

NO FURTHER REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS OR 
MEN IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 125 

From Tappan's Elementary History of Our Country 
[87] 

P. 13s : It was different with this stamp tax. In each colony 
there was an assembly of men elected by the people, and only that 
assembly had ever imposed taxes. The colonists replied, "This is 
not just. In England only the House of Commons can impose a 
tax ; so in America, only the assembly of each colony can tax that 
colony. But, if the king asks us to help England, our assemblies 
will grant money as we have often done before. ..." 

England was startled that mere colonies should dare to be so inde- 
pendent. In these days a nation is proud of her colonies and glad 
to have them prosper; but in the earlier times the countries of 
Europe felt differently. They looked upon a colony as a convenient 
place to send men for whom there seemed no work and no room at 
home. It was also a place where a man whom the king wished to 
favor could receive a grant of land or hold some office, and thus 
make his fortune. In matters of trade, the mother country never 
thought of trying to help the colonies ; and when laws were made 
in England, they always aimed at getting as much money as possible 
from the colonies. 

In 1765 the Stamp Act was passed, though many clear-headed 
statesmen in England were against it. Edmund Burke said it was 
unjust. William Pitt, who was always a friend to America, said, 
"England has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies." 



NO FURTHER REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS OR 

MEN IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE 

REVOLUTION. 



BOOKS IN USE AT PRESENT 



GROUP THREE 

Text-books 

which 

deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 

make no reference to general political conditions in England 

prior to the American Revolution, 

but make, at least, favorable mention 

of several prominent Englishmen. 



From Gordy's Stories of Later American History 
[65] 

P. I : The English Parliament, being largely made up of the King's 
friends, was quite ready to carry out his wishes, and passed a law 
taxing the colonists. This law was called the Stamp Act. 

P. 9 : But perhaps you will be surprised to learn that even in Eng- 
land many leading men opposed it. They thought that George III. 
was making a great mistake in trying to tax the colonies without 
their consent. William Pitt, a leader in the House of Commons, 
made a great speech in which he said : "I rejoice that America has 
resisted". He went on to say that if the Americans had meekly sub- 
mitted, they would have acted like slaves. 

Burke and Fox, other great statesmen, also befriended us. 



NO REFERENCE TO POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 
ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION 
WHICH EXPLAIN THE GULF SEPARAT- 
ING THE KING FROM THE MASS OF 
THE ENGLISH PEOPLE. 

129 



130 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Hamilton's Our Republic, A History of the United 

States 

[69] 

P. 155: When the time came to put the Stamp Act into operation, 
all the collectors had resigned. A number of English statesmen be- 
came convinced that the Stamp Act was an unwise, if not an unjust, 
measure. Edmund Burke questioned the wisdom of the tax, while 
the great William Pitt questioned the right of Parliament to levy it. 



NO OTHER REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS OR 

MEN IN ENGLAND CONNECTED WITH THE 

ENGLISH SIDE OF THE CONTROVERSY. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 181 

From Hart's Essentials in American History 

[70] 

P. 135 : Opposed to the king's policy was a group of brilliant states- 
men, of whom the most famous were William Pitt (later Earl of 
Chatham), Charles James Fox, and Edmund Burke; they counseled 
wise and moderate dealing with the colonies. Notwithstanding this 
opposition, for a long time the king by shrewd means, by bestow- 
ing titles here, appointments there, reproofs to a third man, and 
banknotes where other things failed, was able to keep up in the 
House of Commons a majority, usually called "the king's friends". 

P. 139: The proceeds of the tax (estimated at 100,000 Pounds a 
year) were to go toward the expense of troops which were to be sent 
to America for the defence of the colonies. 

P. 141 : The opposition to the Stamp Act caused much perplexity 
in England. William Pitt warmly defended the colonists : "We may 
bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every 
power whatsoever", said he, "except that of taking their money out 
of their pockets without their consent." 

P. 146: In spite of Edmund Burke's protests against a policy 
"which punishes the innocent with the guilty, and condemns without 
the possibility of defence", a series of coercive statutes, sometimes 
called "the Intolerable Acts", were hastily passed by Parliament. 

P. 154: Up to 1766 the theory of the Americans was that they were 
fighting simply to compel the British to return to the legal principles 
of colonial government ; they still hoped for an honorable settle- 
ment of the trouble. As the war went on, they lost their habitual 
loyalty to the sovereign and began to accuse George III. of all kinds 
of gross tyranny, and to think of independence. 



NO PICTURE OF CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 
PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



132 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Mace's Primary History, Stories of Heroism 

[74] 

P. 141 : King George III, however, thinking only of England's 
debt, decided that England ought to tax the colonies to pay for an 
army which he wished to keep in America. 

P. 144 : Many great Englishmen, such as William Pitt and Edmund 
Burke, opposed the Stamp Tax. Finally, King George and his Par- 
liament repealed the unpopular act. 

P. 145 : More British soldiers were sent there to force the people 
to obey these detested laws. 

P. 151 : The king now tried to trick the Americans into paying the 
tax by making tea cheaper in America than in England. 

P. 172: Washington took Henry's side, but his friends, the Fair- 
faxes, took the king's side in favor of the Stamp Act. 

P. 177: Nine miles away, in Trenton, lay the Hessians, those sol- 
diers from Hesse-Cassel, in Europe, whom George HI. had hired to 
fight his American subjects, because Englishmen refused to fight 
Americans. 



NO REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 

PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, AND ONLY 

THIS CASUAL REFERENCE TO THE 

PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN WHO 

ESPOUSED THE CAUSE OF 

THE COLONISTS. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 133 

From Mace's Beginner's History 
[75] 

P. 154: He (Franklin) wrote many letters to great men, and long 
articles to the English newspapers, explaining how the Stamp Act 
injured America. ... 

He often talked with William Pitt, the great friend of America, 
who introduced into Parliament a plan for making friends between 
the two countries. But the plan was defeated. 

P. 162: Many great Englishmen, such as William Pitt and Ed- 
mund Burke, opposed the Stamp Tax. 



THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD IS TREATED IN 

THIS TEXT-BOOK IN THE CHAPTERS ON 

WASHINGTON, FRANKLIN, SAMUEL 

ADAMS, PATRICK HENRY. ABOVE 

ARE THE ONLY REFERENCES TO 

PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN. 



134 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Mace's School History of the United States 

[76] 

P. 144: The great Edmund Burke favored repeal because it was 
not wise to tax America, while William Pitt and Lord Camden 
argued for repeal because England had no right to tax America. 
Pitt became a greater favorite with the colonists than ever. He 
praised them and said: "I rejoice that America has resisted. Three 
millions of people so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily 
to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make 
slaves of ourselves". 

P. 154: William Pitt (Lord Chatham) introduced a motion for the 
removal of the British troops from Boston. He declared : "When 
your lordships look at the papers ; when you consider their decency, 
firmness, and wisdom, you cannot but respect their cause and wish 
to make it your own. For myself, I must declare — that for solidity 
of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion — no nation 
or body of men can stand in preference to the general Congress at 
Philadelphia". 

Later, by the aid of Franklin, who was then in England, Chatham 
prepared a plan for restoring good feeling between England and her 
colonies, but Parliament voted it down. Edmund Burke also made 
a powerful plea for conciliation, but all in vain. 

P. 177 : Lord Chatham and Edmund Burke had already violently 
denounced the use of Indians by the English. 



AT LEAST SOME NOTICE TAKEN OF THE HELP 
OF LEADING ENGLISHMEN. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 135 

From MacMaster's Brief History of the United States 

[78] 

P. 147: We are often told that taxation without representation 
was the cause of the Revolution. It was indeed one cause, and a 
very important one, but not the only one by any means. The causes 
of the Revolution, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, were 
many, and arose chiefly from an attempt of the mother country to 
(i) enforce the laws concerning trade, (2) quarter royal troops in 
the colonies, and (3) support the troops by taxes imposed without 
the consent of the colonies. 

P. 149, Foot Note: While the Stamp Act was under debate in 
Parliament, Colonel Bar re, who fought under Wolfe at Louisburg, 
opposed it. A member had spoken of the colonists as "children 
planted by our care, nourished by our indulgence, and protected by 
our arms". "They planted by your care !" said Barre. "No, your 
oppression planted them in America. Nourished by your indulgence ! 
They grew up by your neglect of them. They protected by your 
arms ! These Sons of Liberty have nobly taken up arms in your 
defence." 

P. 150: In the opinion of the British people the colonists were 
represented in Parliament. British subjects in America, it was held, 
were just as much represented in the House of Commons as were 
the people of Manchester or Birmingham, neither of which sent a 
member to the House. 

P. 153, Note 2: Pitt in a great speech declared, "the kingdom has 
no right to lay a tax on the colonies, because they are unrepresented 
in Parliament. I rejoice that America has resisted." Edmund 
Burke, one of the greatest of Irish orators, took the same view. 



NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS TO ENGLISH 

CONDITIONS OR MEN CONNECTED WITH THE 

PERIOD PRECEDING THE REVOLUTION. 



136 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Montgomery's Leading Facts of American History 

[82] 

P. 134: During that war, and for a long time before it, the laws 
which forbade the colonists to trade with any country except Great 
Britain had not been enforced. The New Englanders had made a 
great deal of money by trading with the French and the Spanish 
West Indies — sending them lumber and fish, and bringing back 
molasses and sugar from the French islanders, and kegs of silver 
dollars from the Spaniards. 

The new king, George III. (1760), resolved to enforce the English 
laws and so break up this profitable commerce. He was conscientious 
but narrow-minded, obstinate, and at times crazy. He stationed 
ships of war along the American coast to stop trade with the French 
and Spaniards with whom England was at war. Moreover, in 
Boston and other large towns, the King's officers, armed with gen- 
eral warrants called '"Writs of Assistance", began to break into 
men's houses and shops and search them for smuggled goods. 

P. 135, Foot Note: The King had his first attack of insanity — a 
mild one — in 1765, while the Stamp Act was under discussion. In 
1788 he felt that his mind was seriously affected ; bursting into tears, 
he exclaimed that "he wished to God he might die, for he was going 
mad". He soon became so. 

P. 136: The best men in Parliament — such men as William Pitt 
and Edmund Burke — took the side of the colonists. Burke said 
that if the king undertook to tax the Americans against their will, 
he would find it as hard a job as the farmer did who tried to shear 
a wolf instead of a sheep. 

Foot Note: Pitt thought it was not right to tax America; Burke 
thought it was not wise to do so. 

P. 138 : When news of these vigorous proceedings reached London, 
William Pitt said in Parliament : "In my opinion, this kingdom has 
no right to lay a tax on the colonies ... I rejoice that America 
has resisted." The Stamp Act was speedily repealed (1766). Par- 
liament however, put a sting into its repeal, for it passed a Declara- 
tory Act, maintaining that the British government had the right to 
bind the colonies "in all cases whatsoever". 

P. 139: This duty was retained to show that England meant to 
tax the colonies without their consent. 

P. 141 : They humbly petitioned the king to redress their wrongs. 
They might as well have petitioned the "Great Stone Face" in the 
White Mountains of New Hampshire. . . . 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 137 

But the Carolina paper forgot the Tories, who constituted a third 
of the population. They positively refused to take up arms against 
the king. Like the patriots they were brave men ; they loved their 
country; but they believed that the quarrel could be settled without 
drawing a sword or firing a gun. In the end the Tories were driven 
out of the United States, and the patriots seized their houses and 
lands. 



NO REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN PARLIA- 
MENT PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



138 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Morris' History of the United States of America 

[83] 

P. 172: He (George III.) was a man not well fitted to deal with 
a people as sensitive on the subject of political liberty as the Amer- 
icans. Obstinate in disposition and dull in mind, with an exagger- 
ated view of the royal prerogative, he was seconded by ministers 
and a Parliament who could not be made to understand the feeling 
of the colonists, and who persisted in a policy that in a few years 
drove them into rebellion. 

P. 174: It was declared by William Pitt, a friend of the Americans, 
that not even a horseshoe nail could be legally made without per- 
mission from Parliament. 

P. 180: The great orators, William Pitt and Edmund Burke, op- 
posed the law in Parliament. 

Foot Note : Pitt declared that Parliament had no right to tax the 
Americans, and said, "I rejoice that America has resisted". Burke 
said that if the king tried to tax the Americans against their will, he 
would find it as hard a job as the farmer did who tried to shear a 
wolf instead of a sheep. 

P. 191 : Pitt proposed measures of conciliation. They were re- 
jected, and . . . 

P. 220, Foot Note: Pitt denounced in Parliament the employment 
of Hessians and savages. "If I were an American, as I am an 
Englishman", he exclaimed, "while a foreign troop was landed in 
my country, I never would lay down my arms, — never, never, never !" 



THESE ARE THE ONLY REFERENCES TO THE 

SERVICES RENDERED THE COLONISTS 

BY PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 139 

From Sheldon's American History, (Mary Sheldon 
Barnes' Studies in American History.) 

[85] 

See extracts under "Books in use more than twenty years ago", 
No. 34, Page 63. 



NO REFERENCE TO POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 
ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



140 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Swan's History and Civics, Fifth year — Second half 

[86] 

P. 90: But England's interest in her colonies was more selfish 
than this. She valued the Americans chiefly for their usefulness in 
building up British trade and making English merchants rich. 

P. 116: Many of the members of the English Parliament had not 
favored the Act, among them, William Pitt and Edmund Burke. 
. . . So in March, 1766, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act. 

P. 120 : The king, who could easily get Lord North to do anything, 
now had his own way about the treatment of the colonies. 



NO REFERENCE TO THE POLITICAL CONDI- 
TIONS IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE 
REVOLUTION. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 141 

From Thomas' An Elementary History of the United States 

[88] 

P. 187: They (the colonists) laid heavy taxes upon themselves, to 
pay the expenses of their own troops, and did it willingly ; but when 
England began to tax them they objected. 

They claimed that, as they were not represented in the English 
Parliament, that body had no right to tax them. Many of the people 
of England could have made a similar claim, for Parliament was 
elected by a small number of voters, and many large towns were 
unrepresented. But the Americans felt that, if their money was to be 
spent, they should have some voice in deciding what should be done 
with it. 

There were many Englishmen who thought that the Americans 
were right. The English government, however, thought differently, 
and in 1765 Parliament passed the Stamp Act, a law which re- 
quired all law papers, all agreements, all marriage certificates, and 
many other papers, in order to be of any use, to be written on paper 
which had a certain value stamped upon it. These sheets of stamped 
paper varied in value from one cent to sixty dollars, or even more. 

P. 194: The course followed by the king and the majority in 
Parliament was opposed by some of the ablest English legislators, 
such as Edmund Burke and William Pitt, and also many English 
citizens, but without avail. 



NO FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE SERVICES 

RENDERED THE COLONISTS BY 

PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN. 



142 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Thwaites and Kendall's History of the United States 

[90] 

P. 137: King George was an obstinate and narrow-minded person. 
He had formed a hatred for his American subjects because of their 
"disobedience and lawlessness." He was eager to teach them a 
lesson, and announced that anj' opposition to the new taxes would 
promptly be crushed. 

William Pitt, Lord Chatham, and his friend, Edmund Burke, 
one of the greatest British orators, warned his Majesty, from their 
seats in Parliament, that harshness was neither a proper nor a safe 
method of managing dissatisfied Englishmen, whether at home or 
in the distant colonies ; but words of wisdom like these were thrown 
away on a man like King George. 

Foot Note : Pitt's eldest son was in the army ; but his father with- 
drew him, fearing that he might be called on to serve against the 
colonies. 

P. 141 : A great debate arose in Parliament over the rights of the 
Americans, during which Pitt exultingly cried: "I rejoice that 
America has resisted ! Three millions of people so dead to all the 
feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be made slaves would 
have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the rest. . . ." 

In order to please the merchants the Government now repealed the 
Stamp Act. 

P. 148: Pitt told Parliament, "For solidity of reason, force of 
sagacity, and wisdom of conclusions under a complication of diffi- 
cult circumstances, no nation or body of men can stand in prefer- 
ence to the general Congress at Philadelphia." 

Plans for conciliation were urged in Parliament by him and by 
Burke. But all their efforts proved vain, for the insolent majority 
seemed eager to please the hot-headed king. 

P. 158: But up to the close of 1775 most people disliked the 
thought of independence. 

Foot Notes: Not all of the Americans sided with the Revolution- 
ary Party. In every colony many remained loyal to the King. 

Washington once wrote : "When I first took command of the 
Continental army, I abhorred the idea of independence." 



NO OTHER REFERENCE TO POLITICAL CONDI- 
TIONS IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE 
REVOLUTION. 



BOOKS IN USE AT PRESENT 



GROUP FOUR 

Text-books 

which 

deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 

make no reference to general political conditions in England 

prior to the American Revolution, 

but mention, at least, PITT. 



From Connor's The Story of the United States 

[51] 

P. 189: England wanted to use the colonies simply as a means of 
enriching herself. 

P. 190 : The laws against manufactures and trade did not keep the 
Americans from looking up to the mother country, . . . They were 
proud of their connection with England. 

P. 195 : The colonies were not left to fight their battles alone. 
Many of the leading men in England declared that Parliament had 
no right to tax the Americans. "I rejoice", declared William Pitt, 
"that America has resisted." The British merchants whose trade 
with America was suffering, joined in the cry against the Stamp 
Act. The King had to give way, and Parliament repealed the 
unpopular law. 



NO REFERENCE TO POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 

ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, 

NOR ANY FURTHER MENTION OF 

PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN WHO 

ESPOUSED THE CAUSE OF 

THE COLONIES. 

145 



146 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Elson and MacMullan's The Story of Our Country 

[57] 

P. 148 : But the colonists had a friend in the wise statesman Wil- 
liam Pitt. "The Americans ought not to be taxed without their 
consent," said he. "Do we allow them to be represented in Parlia- 
ment? No. Then they should not be taxed unless they are repre- 
sented." 

P. 149: "I rejoice that America has resisted", said William Pitt, 
"three millions of people so dead to all the feelings of liberty as 
voluntarily to submit to be slaves would have been fit instruments to 
make slaves of all the rest." 



NO REFERENCE TO THE POLITICAL CONDI- 
TIONS IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REV- 
OLUTION, NOR TO OTHER PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN WHO SERVED THE 
CAUSE OF THE COLONISTS. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 147 

From Gordy's Elementary History of the United States 

[64] 

P. 137 : Many Englishmen believed that the king had made a 
mistake, and that the Americans were right in refusing to be taxed 
without being represented in the body that taxed them. One of 
these, William Pitt, took up the cause of the colonists in Parliament. 
In an eloquent speech he said, "Sir, I rejoice that America has 
resisted. The Americans have been wronged ! They have been 
driven to madness by injustice!" 

P. 152: But if there were many in the colonies who went over to 
the side of England, so in England not a few took up the cause of 
the colonies. King George found that many Englishmen were 
unwilling to fight against the Americans, some of whom were their 
kinsmen. As it was hard to get English soldiers, the King hired 
German troops, thirty thousand in all, from Hesse-Cassel, his Ger- 
man possession. These soldiers were called Hessians. 



THE ONLY REFERENCE TO ANYTHING DONE 

ON BEHALF OF THE COLONIES BY 

PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN. 



148 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Hodgdon's A First Course in American History, II 

[72] 

P. 2 : In the year 1765 a bill called the Stamp Act was passed by 
the English Parliament. Parliament makes England's laws just as 
Congress at Washington makes our own. 

P. 8: George III. was slow to learn that the people have rights as 
well as the king. He would have done well to give heed to the dis- 
content of the colonists and to the counsel of wise English states- 
men. Many members of Parliament, among them William Pitt, sym- 
pathized with the Americans, and were glad when they refused to 
pay the stamp tax. "I rejoice", said Pitt in a great speech in the 
House of Commons, "that America has resisted". 

P. 79: William Pitt, always America's true friend, rose in Parlia- 
ment and said: "My Lords, you cannot conquer America. And if I 
were an American, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, 
I would never lay down my arms — never — never — never I" 



NO REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND 

PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, NOR TO ANY 

OF THE PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN, 

ASIDE FROM PITT, WHO LABORED 

IN THE INTEREST OF THE 

COLONIES. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 149 

From Thompson's History of the United States 

[89] 

P. 145 : The colonial policy of Great Britain was in accordance 
with the view, accepted by all nations in the seventeenth and eight- 
eenth centuries, that the trade and manufactures of colonies should 
be controlled in the interest of the mother country. Few statesmen 
of Europe could then be found who would deny that the system 
was proper. The policy of Great Britain was more liberal than that 
of other nations, for while laws were passed to secure a monopoly 
of the colonial trade, other laws were passed to build up that trade. 

P. 146: They were proud of being Englishmen, and although they 
resented the unjust course pursued towards them, they willingly 
acknowledged their allegiance to the mother country. 

P. 153: Parliament, realizing the temper of the American people, 
repealed the law in the spring of 1766, but at the same time de- 
clared its right to tax America. Those who favored the repeal were 
led by William Pitt, the great friend of the colonies, and by Edmund 
Burke. 



NO FURTHER REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN 

ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. NOR 

TO THE SERVICES RENDERED THE 

COLONIES BY PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 



BOOKS IN USE AT PRESENT 



GROUP FIVE 

Text-books 

which 

deal fully with the grievances of the colonists, 

make no reference to general political conditions in England 

prior to the American Revolution, 

nor to any prominent Englishmen who devoted themselves to 

the cause of the Americans. 



From Barnes's School History of the United States, 
by Steele 

[42] 

P. 120 : Causes of the Revolution. — The French and Indian War, 
by driving the French from America, rendered it less necessary for 
Great Britain to heed the wishes of the colonists. Accordingly, the 
British officers now began to enforce the odious Navigation Act 
(1761). Moreover, the British Parliament, urged on by King George 
III., made a series of attempts to tax the colonists. The colonists 
resisted these attempts, at first by peaceable means and finally by 
force of arms, declaring that "taxation without representation is 
tyranny". 

The Stamp Act (1765) ordered that stamps should be put on all 
legal documents, newspapers, pamphlets, etc. The money paid for 
the stamps was a tax to support an army for the defence of the 
colonies. But the colonists, who insisted that they could be right- 
fully taxed only by their own assemblies, were thoroughly aroused 
by this law. The houses of British officials were mobbed. Prominent 
Loyalists were hanged in effigy. Stamped paper was seized. The 
stamp agents were forced to resign. People agreed not to use any 
article of British manufacture. Associations, called the "Sons of 
Liberty", were formed to resist the law. Delegates from nine of 
the colonies m.et at New York (the "Stamp Act Congress") and 
framed a Declaration of Rights, and a petition to the king and 
Parliament. The ist of November, appointed for the Stamp Act to 
go into effect, was observed as a day of mourning. Bells were 
tolled, flags were raised at halfmast, and business was suspended. 
Samuel and John Adams, Patrick Henry, and James Otis, by their 
stirring and patriotic speeches, aroused the people over the whole 
land. 

Alarmed by these demonstrations, the British Parliament repealed 
the Stamp Act (1766), but still declared its right to tax the colonies. 

The Townshend Acts, soon after passed by Parliament, laid a tax 
upon tea, glass, paper, etc., and established a Board of Trade at 
Boston to act independently of the colonial assemblies. The money 
raised by the new tax was to pay the salaries of the colonial gov- 
ernors and other officers to be appointed by the crown. 

Mutiny Act. — Troops were sent from England to enforce the 
laws. The Mutiny Act ordered that the colonies should provide 
these soldiers with food and shelter. To be taxed illegally was bad 
enough, but to support armed oppressors was unendurable. The 
New York assembly, having refused to comply, was forbidden to 
pass any legislative acts. 

The colonists, meanwhile, made new agreements not to buy any 
British goods till the duties were repealed. The Massachusetts as- 
sembly sent a circular letter to the other colonies, urging a union for 
the redress of grievances. The King's secretary for colonial affairs 

153 



154 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

ordered the assembly to rescind its action ; but it almost unanimously 
refused. By this time, the assemblies of nearly all the colonies had 
declared that Parliament had no right to tax them without their con- 
sent. (Paragraphs follow on "Boston Massacre", "Boston Tea 
Party", etc.) 



NO REFERENCE TO THE ENGLISH SIDE OF THE 

CONTROVERSY, NOR TO THE EMINENT 

SERVICES RENDERED THE COLONISTS 

BY PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 155 

From Chandler and Chitwood's Makers of American 
History 

[48] 

This book teaches History by reviewing the lives of all the men 
prominent in public life in this country. In doing so, it touches 
upon all the principal events which led to the estrangement between 
the two countries and to the Revolutionary War, but in no word 
refers to the attitude of that part of the population of England which 
understood and championed the claims of the colonists. 



NO MENTION OF PITT, BURKE, BARRE, OR OF 

ANY OTHER PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN 

WHO DEVOTED THEMSELVES TO THE 

CAUSE OF THE COLONISTS. 



156 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Chambers' (Hansell's) A School History of the 
United States 

[50] 

P. 99: Why the Colonists resisted. 

1. From time to time some very unjust laws had been made by 
England for the government of the colonies. When laws are 
unjust and people are forced to obey them, we call this use of power 
tyranny. Brave people seldom submit to tyranny. 

2. One of the laws, made by England as far back as 1660, forbade 
the colonists to build or use their own ships. Although many things 
were exported or sent to Europe, the law was that only English 
vessels were permitted to be used. This law was known as the 
Navigation Act. 

3. In 1764, Acts of Trade were passed. These compelled the colon- 
ists to send their products, such as sugar, rice, tobacco, and indigo, 
to England only. They were forbidden to trade with any other 
country. At one time the colonists were not permitted to manufac- 
ture certain articles for themselves. The object was to make them 
buy these articles abroad, and they were allowed to buy from none 
but English merchants. 

4. Laws were also made in England to tax the colonists for the 
expenses of the French and Indian War. One of these laws was 
known as the Stamp Act. It compelled the colonists to write or 
print on stamped paper every promissory note, bond, or other legal 
document, and also every newspaper and almanac. The stamped 
paper was sold only by the English Government. 

5. Another way by which England tried to raise money in America 
was to require the colonists to pay a tax on the tea they used. 
Taxes were also imposed upon paint, varnish, glass, and other things. 

6. These tax laws were made in England. English laws are made 
by men from different parts of the kingdom. These men represent 
the people of England and form the Parliament, or legislature. 

7. The colonists did not have representatives in Parliament, and 
it should not have imposed taxes upon them, for taxation without 
representation is not right. Among the colonists there were many 
brave men who were willing to fight and die for what they thought 
to be right; so they determined to resist. 

8. The stamped paper that was sent over was either destroyed or 
returned to England. When the tax was placed on tea, the colon- 
ists stopped using it altogether. A number of men disguised as 
Indians went one night on board a vessel loaded with tea, and threw 
it all into the water. This took place in Boston harbor, and is known 
as the Boston Tea Party. 

9. England became angry at the resistance of the colonists, and 
sent soldiers over to compel them to obey. These soldiers were 
quartered in Boston. Very soon trouble arose between them and 
the people. 



NO INDICATION OF THE ENGLISH SIDE OF THE 

CONTROVERSY NOR OF THE GREAT SERVICES 

PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN RENDERED THE 

COLONISTS. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 157 

From Eggleston's A First Book in American History 

[53] 

See quotations under "Books in use more than twenty years ago". 
No. II, Page 84. 



NO REFERENCE TO POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 

ENGLAND WHICH CAUSED PARLIAMENT 

TO WORK HAND IN HAND WITH THE 

KING, NOR TO THE SERVICES 

RENDERED THE COLONISTS 

BY PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 



158 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Eggleston's History of the United States and Its 

People 

[54] 

See quotations under "Books in use more than twenty years ago" 
No. 12, Page 85. 



NO MENTION OF THE FACT THAT MANY ENG- 
LISHMEN FAVORED THE COLONISTS. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 159 

From Eggleston's New Century History of the 
United States 

[55] 

Summary of the Chapter "Causes of the Revolution". 

P 151 • Summary, i. England and the colonies quarreled almost 
from the beginning. Great Britain forced African slaves upon the 
colonies and made hurtful laws, especially the laws to prevent 
manufacturing in the colonies and to interfere with their trade. 
For many years the colonists managed to evade these laws by smug- 
gling and in other ways. «- . ^ r ^u 

2 When George III. became king he made an effort to enforce the 
trade laws strictly. The colonists resisted, holding that a legislature 
in England in which they had no voice had no right to tax them. 

3. Parliament passed the Stamp Act (1765). It required the col- 
onists to pay a stamp tax on all documents and newspapers. But 
the colonists would not use the stamped paper, and not a single stamp 
was sold in all America. . 

4. In 1765 a congress of delegates from nine of the colonies met 
to consider plans of action. It adopted a declaration of rights and 
grievances, declared that the colonists alone had a right to make 
laws and impose taxes, and claimed for every accused person the 
right of trial by jury— a right which at that time was often denied 
to Americans. ,,,■,, 

5. The Stamp Act was repealed. But other equally bad laws were 
passed instead. On March 5, 1770, British soldiers in Boston fired 
upon the people, killing some of them. 

6. In March, 1773, the Virginia legislature appointed a com- 
mittee of correspondence to communicate with the other colonies 
and arranged for united action in self-defence. The other colonies 
liked Virginia's suggestion, and acted upon it. 

7. The laws taxing the colonies were repealed, but a small tax 
on tea was retained. The colonists refused to pay this tax. From 
some ports all tea ships were sent back to England with their cargoes. 
In Boston, citizens threw the tea into the water. Tea sent to Charles 
Town, South Carolina, was put into storehouses, where it lay for 
several years. 

8. These things angered the British, and they made four new laws 
for the injury of the colonies. One of these stopped all trade with 
Boston by forbidding ships to enter or leave the harbor. All the 
colonies treated this wrong to Boston as a wrong to themselves. 

9. These things led to the calling of a Continental Congress, Sep- 
tember 5, 1774, at which it was agreed that no British goods 
should be used in this country. 

THE CHAPTER ITSELF CONTAINS NO ADDL 

TIONAL INFORMATION AS TO PERSONS 

OR MATTERS CONNECTED V^ITH THE 

PERIOD PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION. 



160 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Evans' First Lessons in Georgia History 
[58] 

P. 103: The colonies denied both the justice of the new tax and 
the right of Parliament to levy it. 

The tax was not just, because the colonies bore their share of the 
expense by furnishing and equipping soldiers of their own. The 
tax was not right, because English citizens could not lawfully be 
taxed except by the votes of their representatives. The colonists 
had no representatives in Parliament; they claimed that they should 
be taxed only by their colonial assemblies. 

P. 104: The money raised by the tax was to be spent in support 
of the English army in the colonies. 

P. 108: In March, 1766, the Stamp Act was repealed, and peace 
and order once more prevailed in the colonies, 

P. 109: England was warned by one of her statesmen, who said, 
"If you persist in your right to tax the Americans, you will force 
them into open rebellion." 

P. 119: These measures made the people more and more discon- 
tented. Those who sided with the colonists and were in favor of lib- 
erty were called "Whigs", while those who favored the king were 
called "Tories". "Tory" soon became a term of bitter reproach. 



NO REFERENCE TO THE CONDITIONS IN ENG- 
LAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, NOR 
TO THE SERVICES OF PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN FAVORING THE 
COLONISTS. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 161 

From Evans' The Essential Facts of American History 

[59] 

P. 174: When England planted colonies in America, or agreed to 
people coming here for that purpose, the king had in mind only the 
riches to be gained for England. He cared little for the colony; it 
was planted for the benefit of the mother country. 

P. 177 : We must not get the idea that the American colonists were 
opposed to the mother country in feeling. Such was not the case. 
They loved the Old England from which their fathers came. 

P. 179: The British Parliament, seeing the opposition of the 
colonies, repealed the Stamp Act in 1766. Still Parliament believed 
that the British government had a right to tax the colonies. 



NO REFERENCE TO THE POLITICAL CONDI- 
TIONS IN PARLIAMENT PRIOR TO THE 
REVOLUTION, NOR TO PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN WHO ESPOUSED 
THE CAUSE OF THE 
COLONIES. 



162 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Estill's Beginner's History of Our Country 
[60] 

P. 161 : The kings of England did not seem to care what sort of 
men they sent to America to govern the colonies. 

P. 162: The Americans did not mind paying a tax which they 
themselves had decided was right. But no Americans were allowed 
to be members of the English Parliament, by which the stamp law 
and all other tax laws of England were passed. To the colonists this 
taxing them without their consent — without their being represented 
in Parliament — was the last straw that broke the camel's back. 



NO REFERENCE TO THE CONDITIONS IN ENG- 
LAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, NOR TO 
THE SERVICES RENDERED THE COL- 
ONISTS BY PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 163 

From Forman's History of the United States 
[62] 

P. 114: After the French and Indian War, therefore, England and 
her colonies ought to have been clo&er together than they had 
ever been before ; as a matter of fact, however, after that war they 
were further apart. 

P. 117: Adams knew the king only too well. George III. was not 
disposed to listen to petitions from the colonists ; he intended to rule 
them with a rod of iron if he could. "We shall grant nothing to 
America", said one of the king's ministers, "except what they may 
ask with a halter about their necks." 



NO REFERENCE TO POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN 

ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, NOR 

MENTION OF PITT, BURKE, OR OTHERS. 



164 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From MacMaster's Primary History of the United States 

[77] 

P. 119: SUMMARY. I. In order to defend the colonies Great 
Britain proposed to send over an army and have the colonists help 
to pay the cost. 

2. Money was to be raised by new duties and by a stamp tax on 
newspapers and legal papers. 

3. As the colonists had no representatives in Parliament, they 
refused to pay the stamp duties, and agreed not to buy British 
manufactured goods. This forced Parliament to repeal the stamp 
tax. 

4. But Parliament soon laid new taxes on glass, paint, oils, and tea. 
Again the colonists refused to buy British goods, and soon all the 
taxes were repealed except that on tea. 

5. As the people would not import tea, it was sent over. At some 
places the ships were forced to sail away. At Boston men disguised 
as Indians threw the tea into the water. 

6. For this, Parliament punished Boston. But the colonies sided 
with Boston, and the first Continental Congress met at Philadelphia 
in 1774. 



THE CHAPTER ITSELF CONTAINS NO ADDI- 
TIONAL INFORMATION AS TO PERSONS 
OR MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THE 
PERIOD PRECEDING THE REVOLUTION. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 165 

From MacMaster's School History of the United States 

[79] 

See quotations under "Books in use more than twenty years ago". 
No. 25, Page 87. 



THESE ARE THE ONLY REFERENCES TO MEN 

AND CONDITIONS IN ENGLAND HAVING 

HAD AN INFLUENCE ON THE CONFLICT. 

NO MENTION OF PITT, BURKE, 

OR OTHERS. 



166 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From Montgomery's An Elementary American History 

[80] 

Page 115: Perhaps, then, if we look at both sides of the picture we 
shall think that, on the whole, the people in America were not very 
badly treated — at least, not up to this time. 

Benjamin Franklin was a true American, and he was a good judge 
of such things. He said that the colonists were so contented then 
that the king of England could lead them "by a thread." 

P. 117: After George the Third became king of England (1760) 
the American colonists began to resist being led. Benjamin Frank- 
lin said that they changed entirely in their feeling toward the king. 
They were no longer contented. 



NO FURTHER REFERENCE TO POLITICAL CON- 
DITIONS IN ENGLAND, NOR ANY MENTION 
OF PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN WHO 
FAVORED THE COLONIES. 



IN OUR SCHOOL TEXT-BOOKS 167 

From Montgomery's The Beginner's American History 

[8i] 

See quotations under "Books in use more than twenty years ago". 
No. 26, Page 88. 



THE REFERENCE TO "THE GREATEST MEN IN 
ENGLAND" IS THE ONLY MENTION OF THE 
POSITION TAKEN BY PROMINENT ENG- 
LISHMEN IN FAVOR OF THE 
COLONISTS. 



168 THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 

From White's Beginner's History of the United States 

[93] 

P. no: For a long time the English had been trying to make money 
out of the people of America. 

P. Ill : In 1765 the British Parliament made a law which declared 
that every deed for land, every marriage certificate, every will or 
other important writing must be on stamped paper. This special 
kind of paper was to be sold by the British government at a very 
high price, and the money received from this tax was to be used in 
supporting the British army in America. This law was called the 
"Stamp Act." 

P. 113: The other colonies then spoke out against the Stamp Act, 
the agents for selling stamped paper were forced to resign, and the 
stamped paper was never sold in the thirteen colonies. 



NO REFERENCE TO THE CONDITIONS IN ENG- 
LAND PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION, NOR 
TO THE PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN 
WHO CHAMPIONED THE CAUSE 
OF THE COLONIES. 



V 65 



















^^'\ 















U". ''^J'f^ X' 



^ >; » < Treatment Date; 




*fs?Sv"lONItUINULUUlL ,1NC, 
nlThonr-sonParkDnve 
cranberry Twp. PA 16066 
(412)779-2111 . ^ 



